Thursday, December 1, 2016

Bill proposes confidentiality waiver for testimony on child abuse appeals

Posted By on Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:23 AM

click to enlarge CLARK: Says confidentiality rules need to be loosened. - BRIAN CHILSON
  • BRIAN CHILSON
  • CLARK: Says confidentiality rules need to be loosened.

A bill filed last week
by state Sen. Alan Clark (R-Lonsdale) would allow a legislative committee to hear and discuss confidential information pertaining to a completed child maltreatment investigation under certain circumstances.

Currently, the confidentiality rules surrounding child abuse and neglect cases allow state legislators access to such information, but prevent them from discussing it in committee — a public forum where press is often in attendance. Clark's legislation would come into play when a "true finding" of maltreatment is under appeal and the individual or family in question wants to disclose details pertaining to the case. True findings are not infrequently overturned on appeal.

SB 8 amends the state Child Maltreatment Act to allow for a "waiver of confidentiality" that would permit "the release of information on a true investigative determination pending due process."

We've written recently of the frustrations created by the state's strict nondisclosure rules regarding child abuse cases, which can sometimes seem like a way for child welfare authorities to avoid accountability for errors. (Meanwhile, those same authorities may have had perfectly good reasons for making the decisions they did — but confidentiality prevents them from explaining those decisions.) Some people who say their cases were mishandled by the Division of Children and Family Services, or other parts of the system, have complained that they're prevented from explaining the details of those cases as Clark and other legislators have questioned child welfare practices recently.

Yet confidentiality also exists for a very good reason reason, which is to keep sensitive information regarding children out of the public eye. That's why such cases unfold in closed court proceedings where the press cannot be present. Even if SB 8 brings needed sunlight in some cases, might it not allow for a public airing of grievances that could harm kids in other instances?

Clark said this morning that he was aware of the "danger of unintended consequences" when changing the rules, but he said a change is needed. "The system as it is is not perfect, so solutions cannot be expected to be perfect," he added. Clark said an individual with a true finding of maltreatment can already discuss their case "on the radio" or in some other public forum, and that they should also be able to openly talk about their experience to a legislative body. "Where people plead their innocence especially, it is not uncommon they would like their cases discussed. ... DHS and [the Crimes Against Children Division of the state police], whether on purpose or not, hide behind the confidentiality laws." Clark cited the the Stanley family in Hot Springs, a controversial maltreatment case that's become a cause celebre in conservative circles.

He also said it would be up to the legislative committee whether to grant a waiver of confidentiality to an aggrieved parent or other individual, and that he had confidence legislators would be judicious in what testimony they allowed into committee. "I would rather have a legislator making that decision than a bureaucrat," Clark said.

Tags: , , , , , ,

From the ArkTimes store

Favorite

Speaking of...

Comments (3)

Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

More by Benjamin Hardy

Readers also liked…

Most Shared

  • Executionpalooza

    Appearances count. I was struck by a single sentence over the weekend in a full page of coverage in The New York Times devoted to the killing spree in Arkansas, beginning with a front-page account of the recent flurry of legal filings on pending executions and continuing inside with an interview with Damien Echols, the former death row inmate.
  • Art bull

    "God, I hate art," my late friend The Doctor used to say.
  • Not justice

    The strongest, most enduring calls for the death penalty come from those who feel deeply the moral righteousness of "eye-for-an-eye" justice, or retribution. From the depths of pain and the heights of moral offense comes the cry, "The suffering you cause is the suffering you shall receive!" From the true moral insight that punishment should fit the crime, cool logic concludes, "Killers should be killed." Yet I say: retribution yes; death penalty no.
  • Judge Griffen writes about morality, Christian values and executions

    Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen, who blogs at Justice is a verb!, sends along a new post this morning.
  • The Ledell Lee execution thread

    Arkansas Times contributor Jacob Rosenberg is at the Cummins Unit in Grady filing dispatches tonight in advance of the expected execution of Ledell Lee, who was sentenced to death for the Feb. 9, 1993, murder of Debra Reese, 26, who was beaten to death in the bedroom of her home in Jacksonville.

Visit Arkansas

Haralson, Smith named to Arkansas Tourism Hall of Fame

Haralson, Smith named to Arkansas Tourism Hall of Fame

Chuck Haralson and Ken Smith were inducted into the Arkansas Tourism Hall of Fame during the 43rd annual Governor’s Conference on Tourism

Most Viewed

Most Recent Comments

Blogroll

Slideshows

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation