State Child-Abuser List Ruled Unconstitutional

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The state Appeals Court recently ruled that a state-maintained list of child abusers is unconstitutional on the same grounds raised by a Carthage attorney in a local case.

The N.C. Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision earlier this month, ruled that the system the state used to place names on the Responsible Individuals List (RIL) violates the person's right to due process because it is done in secret without a hearing. Being on that list could prevent someone from adopting a child or getting certain jobs.

Carthage attorney Art Blue raised the same objections in a case involving a Moore County woman whose name was placed on the list after she was charged with child abuse. Even after she was found not guilty, the woman still had to go back to court to ask a judge to order the state to remove her name from the list.

Julie Morgan, whose husband has been serving in Haiti with the 82nd Airborne, was charged with child abuse based on allegations made by her teenage stepdaughter, who no longer lives with her.

But when the girl was put on the witness stand in court during Morgan's criminal trial last June, she admitted making up stories. Her school cheerleading coach testified she had seen the girl changing clothes in the locker room and never noticed any marks or bruises of the kind that would cause concern.

"Under oath during the criminal case before Judge Hill, the child admitted making prior false allegations," District Court Judge Scott Etheridge later found. "(She) admitted to other instances of fabricating allegations and recanting various allegations."

Accusation 'Substantiated'

Morgan was found not guilty, but her legal problems did not end there.

The day before the criminal trial began, social workers with the Moore County Department of Social Services (DSS) placed Morgan's name on the RIL. There was no hearing, and Morgan did not have an opportunity to contest the accusations.

That list is not unavailable to the general public.

It is available to agencies and others who hire teachers or caretakers or when people want to adopt children. It contains the names of persons directors of social services say have been responsible for various forms of child abuse.

In the letter required by law, DSS notified Morgan she had been placed on the list and would have only a limited time to take action to have her name removed. When she asked the local director to take her off, he declined.

Morgan had to hire Blue and go back to court for a second hearing, this time to ask a judge to order her name expunged from the list.

According to court testimony, DSS workers said they had sent the teenager who made the accusations against Morgan to Butterfly House in Albemarle for evaluation.

Without talking to anybody other than the teen, Butterfly House reported to DSS that her allegations against Morgan had been "substantiated," according to court records.

"The child was evaluated by the staff at the Butterfly House, and they determined the petitioner had abused the child based solely upon the self reporting of the child, in the absence of any physical evidence or any other corroborating evidence," Etheridge would find in a later hearing.

Butterfly House is one of a number of sites used for such evaluations according to DSS Director John Benton, who testified at the expungement hearing.

"We contract with a psychologist," Benton said later. "He does evaluations across the state. We can send individuals across the state, many different places. The decision is made as to whether the merits of the case substantiate. You are not (finding someone) 'guilty' of neglect. You 'substantiate' neglect, abuse, dependency.

"Based upon that, we look at the statutes to see whether they go on the RIL. If they meet the requirements, then my designee provides a letter. I sign it, and it goes out to the individual. Then, that individual has a choice."

Morgan had 15 days to appeal the decision to put her name on the list. Once Benton refused, she would have 30 days to ask District Attorney Maureen Krueger to do it or go to court to get a judge to order her name removed.

Krueger routinely passed such questions to the court system. She had held no hearings or heard evidence, and there had been no adversarial procedure followed - just as the justices on the appeals court said in ruling the law unconstitutional.

"You certainly know 'due process' has not been followed when you don't see it," Krueger said last week.

'Pivotal Issue'

That is pretty much exactly what the Appeals Court said in its March 2 opinion: The secret procedures used to put people on the RIL list do not follow due process and are unconstitutional.

"The pivotal issue raised by this appeal is whether the statutory procedures for placing an individual's name on the 'Responsible Individual' List ... violate the individual's procedural due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and ... the North Carolina Constitution," the court said. "We conclude that, at a minimum, the challenged statutory procedures violate an individual's due process rights under ... the North Carolina Constitution."

The case upon which the court ruled came from Wilmington, but the constitutional issues were the same ones Blue raised in Carthage. When a DSS worker showed up at Morgan's home with the required RIL list notification, Morgan simply followed Blue's advice not to discuss the matter with anybody and refused to talk to her.

Once Etheridge ruled that there was no justifiable basis for Morgan to be on that list, it meant he would not have to rule on the constitutional question Blue had raised.

Morgan is still trying to get her name removed from another state list, one kept for statistical purposes.

'One-Sided Determination'

In the meantime, she said she takes comfort from the appeals court ruling that the RIL process is unconstitutional and that anyone could be named a child abuser without a hearing.

"It has long been recognized that justice can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights," the appeals court said, citing case law. "Validity and moral authority of a conclusion largely depend on the mode by which it was reached ... and no better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.

"Due process is perhaps the most majestic concept in our whole constitutional system. While it contains the garnered wisdom of the past in assuring fundamental justice, it is also a living principle not confined to past instances.

"Because the statutory procedures for placing an individual on the RIL deprive individuals of due process, they are unconstitutional under the North Carolina Constitution."

Contact John Chappell at (910) 783-5841 or by e-mail at jchappell@thepilot.com.

More like this story

ASU88 3 years, 1 month ago

Keep them on their toes A. Blue!

JohnChappell 3 years, 1 month ago

For clarity, the false accusations of abuse that the teen admitted making in this case were that she'd been beaten, choked, hurled about.

Couple of corrections: an editing error resulted in the story (see above) saying the RIL is “not unavailable” to the public. The opposite is the case: it is a secret list that is hidden from the public.

And the appeals court did not rule “ … that anyone could be named a child abuser without a hearing … ” but rather that due process requires a hearing.

clbvpm 3 years, 1 month ago

Leave it to John Chappell to have to correct an article he wrote.

lovemoorecounty 3 years, 1 month ago

As a Social Worker in another county I should point out that over 85% of the child abuse and neglect reports investigated are not substantiated. I have never agreed with the RIL. I have been in situations numerous times where the child lies or the parent lies. Rarely does the Social Worker get the truth from either party. I have been trained to do the interviews that are done at the Butterfly House. I have taken children there that I knew had been abused and was told they were unable to confirm abuse. I have taken children there I knew were lying and been told they had been abused. I have no faith in the forensic interviewing done at these places. The only good thing about this is that Ms. Morgan has her good name back. Birdies to Art Blue for taking the case and Judge Etheridge for a wise decision. There are many more Julie Morgans out there some in this county who have been given a raw deal by the DSS system. Maybe the pilot should keep digging and look at what is really under the surface

JulieMorgan1 3 years, 1 month ago

Hi Everyone, I would like to give a big thanks to John Chappell for writing this story, Even though my reputation has taken a great hit from these allegations and this entire situtation. I hope that it has shed some light on how DSS is allowed to carried out there policies and procedures and what has been really funny to see is how you can hold certain jobs with DSS and no one checks behind you to make sure you are doing your job and though. So now I hope that John Chappell did and does continue to open peoples eyes and that he does keep digging with this situation, I am kinda of interested to see what he just might find and how many other people that have been wrongfully done like I have. Well this has been quiet a learning experience for me and rather costly one to, I guess it would be nice if maybe once you are found not gulity then it looks as if the people or person that put you in court for allegations would have to be responbible for the legal fees, suits for court and time missed from work, let along you mental angish or the anxiety that goes along with the whole court process. I do think that if there where stricter laws about false allegations or taking a childs word over an adults word, then I dont think that this kinda of situations would go on. But what is really cute is that I still to this day I have never recieved so much as a formal apology from the DSS, for what they put me though. Its really nice knowing that they can continue to screw up peoples lives and keep there jobs. I know that it is wishful thinking but I guess it is what it is I am just going to keep my head up and stay postive that my name will be taken off of this other list soon and that this endless situation will soon all be over.... Thanks again John

momof1 3 years, 1 month ago

Moore County DSS is known for not doing their job. Other counties hate to deal with them. A child can lie and the parent must fight to get their good name back. An adult can report an abused child who can not speak for themselves and get a letter the next day in the mail saying the abuse was not substantiated. I do not understand this. I agree with lovemoorecounty, keep digging...

spcitizen 3 years, 1 month ago

I couldnt agree more momof1! Im sure there are some good people at Moore County DSS but I have not been fortunate enough to encounter them. I am aware of numerous reports that were made about abuse and the whole process was a joke, the sad part is its the kids that are ones who pay the price.

lovemoorecounty 3 years, 1 month ago

One of the main problems is the system itself. If someone makes a false police report then they can be charged with a crime. However with DSS the names of the reporters are kept confidential. Allegedly to protect them from repercussions. Here in lies the rub. Citizens who file a child abuse or neglect report do not have to give thier names. More often than not the box under name is filled in with the word anonymous. Families use this to make false allegations all the time out of spite over some family squabble. It is not uncommon for two household families to have multiple reports going on at the same time. This "waste of time" prevents the DSS workers from concentrating on the reports that are true and need thier full attention. The really funny thing is there is a law where a reporter can be prosecuted for making a false report. But how do you prosecute Anonymous.

carolina_5991 3 years, 1 month ago

First of all I would like to introduce myself. I am the teenager that accused Ms.Julie Morgan of abusing me. I would like to say what in the world ! When I was in court I never said she didn't abuse me, because she did. She slapped me down to the floor ,put me up against the wall with her arm on my neck, left bruises on my butt when she wooped me checked to make sure she left a mark, she drug me by my hair and picked me up by my hair several times because she was angry at me, she made me write in a journal when i didnt want to only because she wanted me too and I couldnt write what I wanted bcause I know she checked it, one night when I had my glasses laying on the nightstand beside my bed and I stayed awake the whole time ... she was on the computer, got off, came over, then took my glasses upstairs with her, when I would go to school, during gym I would pray to god to please take me out of her home and let me stay with my grandma. My mom finally called and asked how she disaplined me I told her and Julie was right there and she thought it was ok. I stayed with my grandma one weekend and my mom had sent papers that sayed something about my grandma having custody over me or something like that . It took me about 2 weeks to a month to ever tell my grandma what had happened inside Julie's home I was scared of Julie I didn't know what I was supposed to do I was shocked the first time Julie ever hit me because she was always nice until I started to come live with her.I am dissapointed with my father because he is still married to her and she beat me , hurt me tore me apart emotionally and now I have PTSD and not a day goes by that I dont have a bad memory of when I was living with her. I don't know if I am supposed to put my name in here because it wasn't in the article. So this is from the teenager in the article that did not falsely accuse the wicked stepmother that put me through 5 months of hell. Sincerly, The teenager in the article