Maryland Divorce Lawyer Blog
In April 2024, the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (the “Local Department”) notified Silverman Thompson’s client it had found him to be a person responsible for indicated child physical abuse of an infant foster child. Through diligent advocacy, Silverman Thompson helped a very deserving family achieve the justice they rightfully deserved and physical abuse against the child was ruled out.
For a finding of indicated child physical abuse, the Local Department must prove the following elements, pursuant to COMAR 07.02.07.11:
- Physical abuse with no mental injury;
- A physical injury;
- A child victim;
- A parent, caregiver, authority figure, or household or family member of the alleged victim responsible for the alleged abuse; and
- Circumstances including the nature, extent, and location of the injury indicating that the alleged victim’s health or welfare was harmed or was at a substantial risk of harm.
The firm’s client appealed the finding of indicated child physical abuse to the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings.
At a contested hearing, Silverman Thompson family law attorneys Erin Brooks and Monica Scherer argued before the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings that the Local Department failed to meet any of the requisite elements of indicated physical child abuse, and therefore, failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence against the client. Several witnesses testified on behalf of the firm’s client, including not only the named alleged abuser and other members of the household, but also a number of medical providers who were involved with the infant and the family.
Notably, the Local Department did not interview any of these medical providers as part of their investigation, including a provider who also examined the infant on the day of the allegation.
The Local Department presented two witnesses, both employees of the Local Department. Notably, Ms. Brooks and Ms. Scherer were only provided access to the Local Department’s file ten days before the hearing, at which time it was revealed that the Local Department’s case was premised on an assertion that a mark on the infant was a result of a non-accidental trauma (NAT).
On cross examination, one of the Local Department’s witnesses (the “Department Investigator”) affirmed she referred to the mark on the infant as a “mark” and not a “bruise” because the medical professional relied on by the Local Department made no clear determination that it was, in fact, a “bruise.” Furthermore, cross-examination revealed it was the Local Department’s team, rather than the Department Investigator who classified the mark a “bruise” and made the indicated finding.
The other witness for the Local Department was a supervisor involved in the investigation and part of the team (the “Supervisor”), who testified on cross-examination that she was unfamiliar with the Local Department’s own medical professional’s report, role, training, or expertise in this particular case. She conceded that two separate medical providers (including their own) did not find evidence of trauma or a “bruise” on the infant, yet it was her personal belief the mark on the infant was a “bruise.”
The Local Department also relied on outdated articles acquired by the Supervisor at a recent training including one from 1999 and another from 2013. In contrast, the Firm was able to present current articles from 2021 and 2023 on the same subject matter completely refuting that relied upon by the Local Department.
In a detailed twenty-five-page opinion, the Administrative Law Judge ruled out physical child abuse against the firm’s client and modified the finding.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded:
- That when the medical experts’ findings did not validate the presumption of injury and abuse, the Local Department appears to have ignored them and reached its own conclusion which enabled a finding of indicated abuse in a complete absence of medical or factual evidence.
- The Supervisor relied on articles as secondary sources instead of first-hand medical evidence.
- There was no evidence in the record that any meaningful investigation was conducted concerning who was responsible for the alleged injury rather than an arbitrary assignment of the person who spent more time with the infant.
- The investigation appears to have begun and ended with the Local Department’s medically refuted conclusion that the mark on the infant was caused by NAT and therefore the person who spent the most time with the infant must be held to account for that conclusion.
- The Local Department completely failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the finding of indicated child physical abuse was supported by credible evidence or consistent with the law.
This case underscores the importance of evidence-based conclusions. Ms. Brooks and Ms. Scherer worked tirelessly to obtain the rightful justice for this family.
Contact an Experienced Family Law Attorney
The Silverman Thompson domestic department is well-versed in appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings related to findings of indicated and unsubstantiated physical child abuse. To find out more about how we might be able to help you, please contact Monica Scherer at mscherer@silvermanthompson.com or call our office toll-free at 800.385.2243.
mscherer@silvermanthompson.com
jstephan@silvermanthompson.com
Disclaimer: This blog is informative in nature. The information contained herein is not to be considered legal advice and there is no attorney-client relationship formed between Silverman Thompson and the reader.