Monroe v. Blum

• Decision Date: 07 October 1982
• Citation: 456 N.Y.S.2d 142,90 A.D.2d 572
• Parties: In the Matter of James MONROE et al., Petitioners, v. Barbara BLUM, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 142

456 N.Y.S.2d 142

90 A.D.2d 572

In the Matter of James MONROE et al., Petitioners, v. Barbara BLUM, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Oct. 7, 1982.

Michael C. Crowe, Canton, for petitioners.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Peter H. Schiff, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent Blum.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and SWEENEY, KANE, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of the State Department of Social Services which denied petitioners' request that the report of maltreatment in the central register of child abuse and maltreatment be expunged.

On December 6, 1977, a report of suspected child abuse or maltreatment was received by the child protective service of the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services. Petitioners are the natural parents of the child in question, a daughter, then 16 years of age. The report, which cited emotional neglect of the daughter by petitioners and excessive corporal punishment administered upon the daughter by petitioner father, was filed pursuant to section 424 of the Social Services Law with the New York State Department of Social Services central register of child abuse and maltreatment on December 9, 1977.

Following investigation, the local office filed its follow-up report with the central register, concluding that although there was some credible evidence of maltreatment the report should be classified as "unfounded" because the incident of maltreatment was isolated, the child was approaching adulthood, and the parents were cooperative. The central register rejected the reasons for classifying the report as "unfounded" and returned it to the local office. The report was then classified as "indicated" and again filed with the central register. When the central register refused petitioners' request to amend or expunge the "indicated" report, a fair hearing was held. Thereafter, respondent commissioner refused to amend or expunge the "indicated" report. The instant proceeding was then brought to review the determination.

At the outset, we note that subsequently respondent did amend the report to expunge all references to emotional neglect. Consequently, we are concerned only with the finding of excessive corporal punishment allegedly administered by petitioner father.

Petitioners raise several issues urging annulment. We will first consider the alleged impropriety of the central register's refusal to accept the initial report filed by the local child protective service. Petitioners maintain that the central register usurped the authority of the local service. We disagree. While the local child protective service is charged with investigating reports of suspected child abuse and determining whether the report is "indicated" or "unfounded" (Social Services Law, § 424; 18 NYCRR 432.3), the central register had the duty of monitoring the provision of child protective service (Social Services Law, § 422, subd. 2). An "unfounded report" is defined as any report unless an investigation determines that some credible evidence of the alleged abuse or maltreatment exists (Social Services Law, § 412, subd. 5; 18 NYCRR 432.1[e] ) while an "indicated report" is defined as a report if an investigation determines that some credible evidence of the alleged abuse or maltreatment exists (Social Services Law, § 412,...