Could a Maryland school system investigate its own employee for suspected child abuse separately from the police or social services investigation?

Plain-English summary

A state senator asked the Attorney General a set of five interlocking questions after the Howard County Board of Education adopted a policy letting its own staff investigate allegations that a school employee had committed child abuse, separately from the investigation Maryland law required the local department of social services ("local DSS") and the police to conduct. The senator asked whether a school system could run that kind of personnel investigation at all, whether it needed its own investigative findings before disciplining an employee, whether the school system and its employees were immune from liability for conducting the investigation, whether interfering with the official child abuse investigation carried any penalty, and what procedure applied when the suspected abuser worked for the very agency responsible for investigating abuse reports.

The opinion found a middle path. It concluded a school system could conduct its own internal personnel investigation of an employee accused of child abuse, because nothing in the Child Abuse subtitle of the Family Law Article stripped school boards of the authority the Education Article otherwise gave them to gather facts needed for discipline, but the General Assembly clearly meant the local DSS and police investigation to take priority. So the school system's own investigation had to wait until the abuse was reported to DSS or police, had to be disclosed to those agencies, could not include interviewing the victim, the accused, or witnesses without DSS or police consent, had to keep what it learned confidential, and should not reach a final disciplinary decision without the State's Attorney's concurrence if criminal charges might follow. On the evidence question, the opinion found a superintendent did not need the school's own investigation at all: evidence gathered by school staff serving on a multidisciplinary team could support discipline, though only after a court order authorized disclosing that otherwise confidential information at the hearing. On immunity, the opinion found the school system itself was not fully shielded, but an individual employee who conducted the investigation in good faith on a supervisor's instructions was generally immune from personal liability for a tortious act or omission. On interference, the opinion found no statute specifically penalized interfering with a child abuse investigation, though general obstruction offenses might theoretically apply in extreme cases, and that the State Board of Education could not force local boards to follow its non-binding model policy against internal investigations, since that policy was never adopted as a bylaw or regulation. Finally, when the suspected abuser worked for the very agency responsible for investigating abuse reports, the opinion concluded a different, unconflicted agency had to handle the investigation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Maryland's child abuse reporting and investigation statutes, the Education Article's teacher-discipline provisions, and the confidentiality statute discussed here (then codified at Article 88A, §6) have since been amended and recodified in places; verify the current statutory citations and any newer guidance on school investigations of employee child abuse allegations before relying on any specific rule described here.

Common questions

Could a Maryland school board investigate its own employee for child abuse on top of the official DSS or police investigation?
According to this 1991 opinion, yes, but only within limits meant to protect the primary investigation: the school system could not start investigating until the abuse had been reported to the local department of social services or police, had to tell that agency it intended to investigate, and could not interview the victim, the accused employee, or witnesses without that agency's prior consent.

Did a school superintendent need the results of the school's own investigation before disciplining an employee?
No. The opinion concluded a superintendent did not need direct investigative information at all; evidence gathered by the local DSS or police could be introduced at a disciplinary hearing through school staff who served on a multidisciplinary case consultation team, so long as a court first authorized disclosure of that otherwise confidential information for use at the hearing.

Were school employees personally liable if something went wrong during their own investigation of a colleague?
Generally no, according to the opinion, as long as the employee acted in good faith on a supervisor's instructions and within the scope of employment; the school system itself, however, did not enjoy the same complete immunity and could face liability for the investigation.

Was there a specific crime for interfering with a child abuse investigation?
No. The opinion found no statute created a specific offense for interference, though it noted the general common-law offenses of obstructing a police officer or obstruction of justice could theoretically apply in extreme circumstances, which it considered very unlikely to arise from an ordinary school personnel investigation.

Background and statutory framework

The dispute arose after the Board of Education of Howard County adopted a June 27, 1991 "Policy on Child Abuse, Sexual Abuse and Neglect" directing that, when a report alleged a school employee was the abuser, the superintendent's designee, cooperating with law enforcement, would "promptly investigate the charges against the employee" for personnel purposes. Professional school employees could be suspended or dismissed for "immorality" or "misconduct in office" including failing to report suspected abuse, ED §6-202(a)(i) and (ii), following due-process procedures requiring notice of charges, an opportunity for a hearing with counsel and witnesses, and a right of appeal to the State Board of Education, ED §6-202(a)(2)-(4), consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's due process mandate, Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-46 (1985). Because ED §6-202 required the school board to have sufficient evidence to support discipline and to let the employee respond, Resetar v. State Board of Education, 284 Md. 537, 553, 399 A.2d 225 (1979), the opinion reasoned the board necessarily had implicit authority to find out whether such evidence existed, unless that authority was cut off by the separate Child Abuse subtitle of the Family Law Article.

That subtitle, FL Title 5, Subtitle 7, required health practitioners, police officers, educators, and human service workers to report suspected abuse immediately to the local DSS or police, FL §5-704(a)(1) and (b)(1)(i), with the receiving agency required to notify the other, FL §5-704(b)(2)(i), and a written follow-up report due within 48 hours, FL §5-704(b)(1)(ii). The local DSS or police were then required to conduct a thorough, prompt investigation, FL §5-706(a)(1), including seeing the child within 24 hours, FL §5-706(b), determining the nature and cause of the abuse and the abuser's identity, FL §5-706(c), completing the investigation within 10 days where possible, FL §5-706(g)(1), and reporting findings to the State's Attorney, FL §5-706(h) and (i); for sexual abuse allegations, the responsible agencies had to implement a joint investigation procedure designed to expedite validation, reduce trauma to the child, and train personnel, FL §5-706(f)(1) and (2). The opinion traced this scheme's history from the 1963 child-mistreatment statute, Chapter 743, Laws of Maryland 1963, through the 1966 act designating the local DSS as the principal investigating agency, Chapter 221, Laws of Maryland 1966, the 1973 act adding the police as a co-investigating agency, Chapter 835, Laws of Maryland 1973, the 1984 recodification into the Family Law Article, Chapter 296, Laws of Maryland 1984, that same year's joint-investigation and training mandate arising from the Governor's Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, Chapter 611, Laws of Maryland 1984, and later amendments consolidating and updating the subtitle, Chapter 635, Laws of Maryland 1987, and Chapter 6, Laws of Maryland 1988. Throughout this history, the opinion found no suggestion that the General Assembly meant to let some other agency, like a school system, conduct a competing investigation of the same abuse allegation for its own purposes, but it likewise found nothing flatly barring a school system from separately investigating for the different purpose of deciding on employee discipline.

Reconciling these goals, the opinion concluded a school system's personnel investigation had to give way to the primacy of the official abuse investigation: it could not begin, or at least could not act, before the report was made to DSS or police, FL §5-704; it had to notify the primary investigative agency of its intent and follow whatever limits that agency imposed, particularly on contacting the alleged abuser or witnesses; it could not interview the victim without DSS or police consent; it had to protect the confidentiality of information it learned, since "all records and reports concerning child abuse ... are confidential" under Article 88A, §6(b); and it should not press a final disciplinary decision to conclusion, given a modest risk of a collateral estoppel effect on a later criminal case, Bowling v. State, 298 Md. 396, 470 A.2d 797 (1984); Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. TKU Associates, 281 Md. 1, 18-19, 376 A.2d 505 (1977), without the State's Attorney's concurrence.

On the evidence question, the opinion found a superintendent could rely entirely on the DSS or police investigation rather than conducting an independent one. Article 88A, §6(b)(2) allowed disclosure of confidential abuse records to members of a "multidisciplinary case consultation team," a body defined by COMAR 07.02.07.17A and required by COMAR 07.02.07.17B to include educational-agency personnel, consistent with the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act's grant conditions, 42 U.S.C. §5106c(a) (1988), and its implementing regulation requiring investigations that may include "reviews by multidisciplinary teams," 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(d). But the opinion cautioned that access to information was not the same as authority to disclose it: under current law, a school system could introduce that confidential information at a disciplinary hearing only by first obtaining a court order under Article 88A, §6(b)(1) authorizing disclosure, since improper disclosure was itself a criminal offense, Article 88A, §6(e).

On immunity, the opinion found the Child Abuse subtitle's own immunity, FL §5-708, tied to CJ §5-362, protected people who made reports or participated in the official investigation, which did not include a school system acting under its separate Education Article authority; a school system conducting a good-faith internal investigation, Catterton v. Coale, 84 Md. App. 337, 579 A.2d 781 (1990), cert. denied, 321 Md. 638, 584 A.2d 67 (1991), fell outside that specific grant. But two other immunities applied: school employees generally were not personally liable for torts committed within the scope of employment, CJ §5-353(e), and were not personally liable for actions taken while participating in a dismissal or disciplinary proceeding within the scope of employment, ED §6-109(b) and CJ §5-354(b), with "scope of employment" meaning the employee was advancing the employer's interests, Rusnack v. Giant Food, Inc., 26 Md. App. 250, 265, 337 A.2d 445, cert. denied, 275 Md. 755 (1975); Dhanray v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 62 Md. App. 94, 99, 488 A.2d 512 (1985). The school board itself, however, could face liability up to the limits of CJ §5-353(b).

On interference, the opinion found no statute created a distinct offense for interfering with a child abuse investigation, though the common-law offenses of obstructing a police officer or obstruction of justice might theoretically apply, Cover v. State, 297 Md. 398, 466 A.2d 1276 (1983); Sibiga v. State, 65 Md. App. 69, 499 A.2d 485 (1985); Mayne v. State, 45 Md. App. 483, 414 A.2d 1 (1980), while finding the necessary criminal intent extremely unlikely to arise in an ordinary school personnel investigation. On the civil side, the opinion found the State Board of Education's statutory authority to enforce its own bylaws, rules, and regulations, ED §2-205(b)(1), (c)(1)-(3), and (d)(2), did not extend to the Department of Education's model Child Abuse and Neglect Policy discouraging internal school investigations, since a county board's educational-policy authority, ED §4-107(3), was subject only to properly adopted State Board bylaws, rules, and regulations, ED §4-108(a), and the model policy was never adopted as one.

Finally, the opinion turned to conflicts of interest: federal regulation required that when a report of suspected abuse implicated the agency, institution, or facility that would ordinarily receive the report, "a different properly constituted authority must receive and investigate the report," 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(e), a principle echoed in state regulations for reports implicating a State or local-department employee, COMAR 07.02.07.06D. While no Maryland statute directly addressed this for school-employee cases, the opinion concluded that when the suspected abuser worked for the agency normally charged with investigating the report, a different responsible investigative agency had to conduct the investigation to avoid the conflict.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• §5-701(k) of the Family Law Article, defining "law enforcement agency"
• ED §6-202, general teacher/professional-personnel dismissal and due process scheme
• ED §6-202(a)(i) and (ii), grounds of "immorality" and "misconduct in office" for dismissal
• ED §6-202(a)(2)-(4), notice, hearing, and appeal rights before dismissal
• ED §6-202(b), excluding probationary staff from tenure due-process protections
• FL §5-704(a)(1) and (b)(1)(i), mandatory oral reporting of suspected abuse
• FL §5-704(b)(2)(i), cross-notification duty between DSS and police
• FL §5-704(b)(1)(ii), 48-hour written follow-up report requirement
• FL §5-706(a)(1), duty to promptly and thoroughly investigate reports
• FL §5-706(b), 24-hour requirement to see the child and assess safety
• FL §5-706(c), required scope of the investigation's findings
• FL §5-706(d), State's Attorney's role assisting the investigation
• FL §5-706(f)(1) and (2), joint investigation procedure for sexual abuse cases
• FL §5-706(f)(2)(iii), ongoing training program requirement
• FL §5-706(g)(1), 10-day investigation completion target
• FL §5-706(h) and (i), reporting findings to the State's Attorney
• FL §5-701(b)(1), defining "abuse"
• FL §5-705, reporting duty for non-professional reporters
• FL §5-710(a), local DSS's duty to render services based on its findings
• FL §5-710(b), State's Attorney's emergency removal petition authority
• FL §5-708, immunity for those participating in reports and investigations under the subtitle
• Article 27, §35A of the Maryland Code, State's Attorney's authority to file criminal abuse charges
• §3-820(c)(1)(ii) of the Courts Article, juvenile court commitment/removal relief
• Chapter 743, Laws of Maryland 1963, the original child-mistreatment criminal statute
• Chapter 221, Laws of Maryland 1966, establishing local DSS as principal investigating agency
• former §11A of Article 27, the 1966 reporting and investigation statute
• Chapter 835 of the Laws of Maryland 1973, adding police as a co-investigating agency
• Chapter 296 of the Laws of Maryland 1984, recodifying family law including child abuse provisions
• Chapter 611, Laws of Maryland 1984, mandating joint investigation agreements and training
• Chapter 635, Laws of Maryland 1987, consolidating child abuse and neglect provisions
• Chapter 6, Laws of Maryland 1988, adding the local health officer to joint investigation agreements
• Article 88A, §6(b), confidentiality of child abuse records and reports
• Article 88A, §6(b)(1), court-order requirement for disclosure at a hearing
• Article 88A, §6(b)(2), disclosure to multidisciplinary case consultation team members
• Article 88A, §6(e), criminal penalty for improper disclosure
• COMAR 07.02.07.17A, defining a multidisciplinary case consultation team
• COMAR 07.02.07.17B, requiring inclusion of educational-agency personnel on the team
• COMAR 07.02.07.06D, conflict-of-interest procedures for State/local-department employee abuse reports
• 42 U.S.C. §5106c(a) (1988), federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act grant conditions
• 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(d), federal regulation on investigation methods including multidisciplinary review
• 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(e), federal regulation requiring a different agency to investigate conflict-of-interest reports
• 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(i)(3), federal confidentiality requirements
• CJ §5-362, statutory immunity for good-faith reporters and investigation participants
• ED §6-109(a) and CJ §5-354(a)(1), immunity for employees who report suspected abuse
• CJ §5-353(e), general immunity for school employees acting within scope of employment
• ED §6-109(b) and CJ §5-354(b), immunity for employees participating in disciplinary proceedings
• CJ §5-353(b), limits on the school board's own liability
• ED §2-205(b)(1) and (c)(1), State Board's authority to set educational policy and adopt regulations
• ED §2-205(c)(2) and (3), force-of-law effect of State Board bylaws and regulations
• ED §2-205(d)(2), State Board's authority to enforce its bylaws and regulations
• ED §4-107, enumerated duties of county boards of education
• ED §4-107(3), county board's educational-policy authority
• ED §4-108(a), county board authority subject to State Board bylaws and regulations

Cases:

• Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-46 (1985), U.S. Supreme Court decision on due process before dismissal
• Resetar v. State Board of Education, 284 Md. 537, 553, 399 A.2d 225 (1979), Maryland Court of Appeals decision on the evidentiary burden for teacher dismissal
• Parker v. Board of Education, 237 F. Supp. 222 (D. Md.), aff'd 348 F.2d 464 (4th Cir. 1965), federal decision on Maryland teacher tenure
• Bowling v. State, 298 Md. 396, 470 A.2d 797 (1984), on collateral estoppel from non-criminal proceedings in later criminal cases
• Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. TKU Associates, 281 Md. 1, 18-19, 376 A.2d 505 (1977), setting out the collateral estoppel test
• Catterton v. Coale, 84 Md. App. 337, 579 A.2d 781 (1990), cert. denied, 321 Md. 638, 584 A.2d 67 (1991), on the good-faith standard for immunity
• Rusnack v. Giant Food, Inc., 26 Md. App. 250, 265, 337 A.2d 445, cert. denied, 275 Md. 755 (1975), on the "scope of employment" test
• Dhanray v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 62 Md. App. 94, 99, 488 A.2d 512 (1985), applying the same scope-of-employment test
• Cover v. State, 297 Md. 398, 466 A.2d 1276 (1983), on obstructing or hindering a police officer
• Sibiga v. State, 65 Md. App. 69, 499 A.2d 485 (1985), on obstruction offenses
• Mayne v. State, 45 Md. App. 483, 414 A.2d 1 (1980), on obstruction offenses

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1991/Volume76_1991.pdf (this opinion appears at printed pages 220-239 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

FAMILY LAW

Child Abuse and Neglect - Education - Public Schools -
Investigations By School Systems of Allegations That
Employees Committed Child Abuse

                       December 17, 1991

The Honorable Thomas M. Yeager
Maryland Senate

 You have requested our opinion on several issues concerning

investigations by school system personnel of allegations that a school
system employee committed child abuse. Specifically, you have asked:

 1. Is a school system authorized to conduct, for personnel

purposes, an investigation of allegations of abuse of a student by a
school system employee independent of the child abuse investigation
conducted by a local department of social services ("local DSS") or the
police? If the school system has that authority, what procedures must
the school system follow?

 2. Is direct investigative information a prerequisite to administrative

action against a school employee accused of abusing a student?

3. Do a school system and its employees enjoy immunity for acts

or omissions during the school system's investigation?

 4. If the school system's investigation compromises or interferes

with the one conducted by the local DSS or the police, or adversely
affects a criminal case prior to disposition, is the school system subject
to any criminal or civil penalty or liability?

5. Does Maryland law provide any procedures to follow when

conflicts of interest arise in investigations of child abuse?

 In responding to your inquiry, we face a significant problem of

statutory construction. It would be easy enough to say, using the exact
phrasing of your question, that a school system has no authority to
conduct its own "child abuse investigation." But that response would not
really deal with the issue, because a school system can contend with
merit that an investigation conducted solely for the purpose of gathering
evidence for a personnel hearing is not a "child abuse investigation."

 The issue is not a matter of terminology but of statutory scope.

There is no doubt that the General Assembly wanted only specific
agencies, not including a school system, to do an investigation in order
to figure out how to help the child and whether to prosecute the alleged
abuser. And the legislative history supports the conclusion that no
collateral investigation by someone else of the same facts may interfere
with the primary investigation. What we are unable to conclude, under
current law, is that the General Assembly has flatly prohibited a school
system from conducting an investigation in order to figure out what to
do with an employee who has been accused of child abuse.

Our conclusion, in short, is that a school system may conduct its

own personnel inquiry, but only within limits that ensure the primacy of
the child abuse investigation. If the General Assembly concludes that
a different outcome is preferable, it is free to change the statute
accordingly.

 More specifically, our opinion is as follows:

  In Part I of this opinion, we conclude that a school system may

conduct its own internal personnel investigation of alleged child abuse
by an employee if it complies with the following limitations: (i) The
school system may take no investigatory action prior to the submission
of a report about the incident to the local DSS or the appropriate law
enforcement agency.1 (ii) The school system should notify the local
DSS or the police of its intention to conduct an internal investigation,
(iii) The school system should not interview the victim of the alleged
abuse, the alleged abuser, or any potential witness without the prior
consent of the local DSS or the police, (iv) The school system must
keep confidential any information about the alleged child abuse that it
learns during the course of its internal investigation, (v) In order to
avoid any possible risk of a collateral estoppel effect on a criminal
prosecution, the school system should not seek to adjudicate a final
disposition of a personnel action against an alleged child abuser, where
the charges are based on the alleged abuse, without the prior consent of
the State's Attorney.

    1
       The term "law enforcement agency" is defined as follows:
            (1) "Law enforcement agency" means a State, county, or
       municipal police department, bureau, or agency.
            (2) "Law enforcement agency" includes:
              (i) a State, county, or municipal police department or
       agency;
              (ii) a sheriff's office;
              (iii) a State's Attorney's office; and
              (iv) the Attorney General's office.

§5-701(k) of the Family Law Article ("FL" Article). For brevity's sake, and to
reflect common practice, this opinion will generally refer only to "police"
investigations.

 In Part II, we conclude that a local superintendent of schools does

not need direct investigative information to take appropriate action
against a school employee suspected of child abuse. With court
approval, school personnel who are members of a multidisciplinary team
may disclose information obtained by the local DSS or the police for use
in a disciplinary hearing.

 In Part III, we conclude that a school system does not enjoy

complete immunity from liability if it conducts an independent personnel
investigation of an allegation that one of its employees committed child
abuse. However, a school system employee undertaking such an
investigation in accordance with a school system's policy would
ordinarily be immune from personal liability for a tortious act or
omission during the investigation.

 In Part IV, we conclude that neither a statute nor the common law

sets out the specific offense of interfering with an investigation of child
abuse. Although the common law offenses of obstructing or hindering
a police officer in the performance of duty or obstruction of justice
could conceivably form the basis of charges, the facts that would be
necessary for such charges to be brought are extremely unlikely to occur
in a school board's internal personnel investigation, particularly if the
school board conducts the personnel investigation within the constraints
discussed in this opinion. With regard to civil sanctions, although a
local school system's decision to conduct independent investigations is
inconsistent with the model policy of the State Department of Education,
the State Board of Education has no authority to prevent implementation
of the local school system's decision, because the model State policy is
not embodied in a bylaw or regulation.

 In Part V, we conclude that in cases where the suspected abuser is

an employee of the agency charged with responsibility for investigating
reports of suspected child abuse, the investigation must be conducted by
another responsible investigative agency in order to avoid a conflict of
interest.

                                    I

            Investigations of Suspected Child Abuse

A. The School System's Personnel Concerns

 On June 27, 1991 the Board of Education of Howard County

adopted a new "Policy on Child Abuse, Sexual Abuse and Neglect."
The policy acknowledges that validation of suspected child abuse or
neglect is the responsibility of the Howard County Department of Social
Services and the Howard County Police Department. Accordingly, the
policy directs a school employee or volunteer to make an immediate oral
report of suspected abuse to one of these agencies and to the school
principal or the Superintendent of Schools.

 However, if the report alleges that a school employee is the abuser,

the policy requires "[t]he Superintendent's designee, in cooperation with
responsible law enforcement authorities, [to] promptly investigate the
charges against the employee and prepare a confidential report to the
Superintendent." Although the intent is that the school system's
investigation be done cooperatively, nevertheless the investigation is
intended to be conducted by school system employees.

 If, considering the results of the internal investigation, the

Superintendent has "reasonable cause" to conclude that the employee
engaged in acts of child abuse or sexual abuse, the Superintendent is to
determine the appropriate discipline, up to and including dismissal.
Suspension or dismissal of a certificated employee must follow the
procedures set forth in §6-202 of the Education Article ("ED" Article).

 Professional employees of a local school system unquestionably may

be suspended or dismissed if they are found to have abused a student.
ED §6-202 allows a county board of education to suspend or dismiss
professional personnel for, among other things, "[i]mmorality" and
"[m]isconduct in office including knowingly failing to report suspected
child abuse in violation of §5-903 of the Family Law Article ...." ED
§6-202(a)(i) and (ii).2

    2
       Professional personnel within the scope of ED §6-202 include teachers,

principals, supervisors, assistant superintendents and "other professional
assistants." ED §6-202(a). Disciplinary proceedings for non-professional
employees are not addressed in statute but may be part of the negotiated
agreements between employee groups and local school systems.

 In addition to enumerating the causes for which a board may dismiss

an employee, ED §6-202 also establishes the due process rights that the
board must accord to tenured employees prior to dismissal.3 Before
suspending or dismissing an individual, the county board must "send the
individual a copy of the charges against him and give him an opportunity
within 10 days to request a hearing." ED §6-202(a)(2). If the individual
submits a timely request for a hearing, the county board must hold one,
at which the individual has an opportunity to be heard, in person or by
counsel, and to present witnesses. ED §6-202(a)(3). Except for
assistant superintendents and higher level administrators in Baltimore
City, the individual may appeal from the decision of the county board
to the State Board of Education. ED §6-202(a)(4). These procedures
are consistent with the due process mandate of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.
v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-46 (1985).4

  While ED §6-202 sets forth the general scheme under which

teacher dismissals must be considered, it is silent about the type and
quantum of evidence required before the board may dismiss the teacher.
"This section does not specifically describe the procedural or substantive
elements of the hearing, other than to require a prompt hearing and to
grant the individual an opportunity to be heard before the board, in
person or by counsel, and to bring witnesses." 64 Opinions of the
Attorney General 125, 126 (1979). Nor does ED §6-202 provide
guidance about the board's investigation of charges for dismissal.
Finally, neither the statute nor its legislative history specifically
contemplates the difficult situation in which an employee is charged with
child abuse. Thus, ED §6-202 does not expressly vest local school
officials with the authority to conduct an independent investigation of
suspected child abuse by a school employee.

Standing alone, the absence of express authority in ED §6-202 to

conduct an investigation would not preclude a school system from doing
so. The statute plainly restricts school officials' authority to dismiss an
employee to circumstances in which there is sufficient evidence that the

    3
        Professional public school employees in Maryland acquire "tenure"

after two years of employment. Parker v. Board of Education, 237 F. Supp. 222
(D. Md.), aff'd 348 F.2d 464 (4th Cir. 1965). Therefore, they may be dismissed
only for cause, subject to statutory due process provisions. Those provisions,
however, do not apply to probationary staff, those who have worked for the
school system for less than two years. ED §6-202(b).
4
Neither the statute nor the due process mandate requires comparable
procedures if the board's personnel action falls short of a suspension - for
example, a transfer or the imposition of leave with pay.

employee has committed one of the acts enumerated in §6-202(a) and in
which the employee has been afforded an opportunity to present
evidence in his or her own defense. Resetar v. State Board of
Education, 284 Md. 537, 553, 399 A.2d 225 (1979). This burden on
the school board, to present evidence sufficient to warrant discipline,
implies the board's authority to find out whether such evidence exists.
Confronted with a somewhat analogous question - whether hearings
under ED §6-202 may be conducted by an appointed hearing examiner
in the absence of explicit statutory authorization - the Attorney General
determined that the use of hearing officers was not precluded. 64
Opinions of the Attorney General at 126.

 Hence, we conclude that the Howard County Board of Education

has authority under the Education Article to develop the facts that it
would need to decide whether an employee should be disciplined, unless
this authority has been curtailed by other law - specifically, the
provisions of the Family Law Article dealing with child abuse. Indeed,
as a practical matter, no school system can avoid the immediate issue
whether the employee should be removed from contact with children
pending further investigation.

B. Child Abuse Subtitle

 1.   Current statute

 The General Assembly has enacted a comprehensive child abuse

prevention, detection, and treatment program. This legislative plan,
embodied in Subtitle 7 of Title 5 of the Family Law Article ("FL"
Article), provides for civil procedures to identify and protect abused
children and criminal procedures to punish child abusers. The process
involves three distinct steps: the reporting of suspected abuse; an
investigation of these reports; and, if abuse is verified, the provision of
services, the initiation of court proceedings, or both.5

 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any law on

privileged communications, each health practitioner, police officer,
educator, or human service worker acting in a professional capacity who
has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse is required
to make an oral report, by telephone or direct communication, as soon
as possible to the local DSS or the police. FL §5-704(a)(1) and

    5
       Maryland law also provides protection for children suspected of being

neglected. However, because your questions pertain to cases where a school
employee is suspected of child abuse, this opinion focuses on child abuse only.

(b)(1)(i).6 The agency to which the oral report is made must
immediately notify the other agency. FL §5-704(b)(2)(i). Not later than
48 hours after the contact that caused the individual to believe that the
child had been subjected to abuse, the professional must make a written
report to the local DSS with a copy to the local State's Attorney. FL §5-
704(b)(1)(ii).7

 Promptly after receiving a report of suspected abuse, the local DSS

or the police, or both if jointly agreed on, are to make a thorough
investigation of the report to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
the child or children. FL §5-706(a)(1).8 Moreover, if the report alleges
sexual abuse, the agencies responsible for investigating reported cases
of suspected sexual abuse, including the local DSS, the police, and the
local State's Attorney, are to implement "a joint investigation procedure
for conducting joint investigations of sexual abuse." FL §5-706(f)(1).
The joint investigation procedure must include "appropriate techniques
for expediting validation of sexual abuse complaints"; include techniques
designed to "decrease the potential for physical harm to the child" and
"decrease any trauma experienced by the child in the investigation and
prosecution of the case"; and "establish an ongoing training program for
personnel involved in the investigation or prosecution of sexual abuse
cases." FL §5-706(f)(2).

Maryland law requires the investigation to be both thorough and

timely. Within 24 hours after receiving the report of suspected abuse,

    6
     "Abuse" means:
         (i) the physical injury of a child by any parent or other
    person who has permanent or temporary custody or
    responsibility for supervision of a child, or by any household
    or family member, under circumstances that indicate that the
    child's health or welfare is significantly harmed or at risk of
    being significantly harmed; or
          (ii) sexual abuse of a child, whether physical injuries
    are sustained or not.
    (2) "Abuse" does not include, for that reason alone,
    providing a child with nonmedical religious remedial care and
    treatment recognized by State law.

FL §5-701(b)(1).
7
With certain exceptions, a person other than a health practitioner,
police officer, educator, or human service worker who has reason to believe that
a child has been subjected to abuse is required to make either an oral or written
report to the local DSS or the police. FL §5-705.
8
On request by the local DSS, the State's Attorney assists in the
investigation. FL §5-706(d).

the local DSS or the police must see the child, attempt to have an on-site
interview with the child's caretaker, and decide on the safety of the child
and any other children in the care or custody of the alleged abuser. FL
§5-706(b). The investigation shall include, among other things, a
determination of the "nature, extent, and cause of the abuse, if any";
and, if the suspected abuse is verified, "a determination of the identity
of the person or persons responsible ...." FL §5-706(c). To the extent
possible, the investigation must be completed within 10 days after
receipt of the first notice of suspected abuse by the local DSS or the
police. FL §5-706(g)(1). The local DSS or the police must submit first
their preliminary findings and later their final investigative report to the
State's Attorney. FL §5-706(h) and (i).

 Based on its finding and treatment plan, the local DSS must "render

the appropriate services in the best interests of the child, including,
when indicated, petitioning the juvenile court for appropriate relief ...."
FL §5-710(a).9 If a report has been made to the State's Attorney and the
State's Attorney is not satisfied with the recommendation, the State's
Attorney may petition the court at that time to remove the child if the
State's Attorney concludes that the child is in serious physical danger
and an emergency exists. FL §5-710(b). The State's Attorney may also
file criminal charges against the abuser. Article 27, §35A of the
Maryland Code.

 2.   Legislative history

     In 1963 the General Assembly enacted the first statute

pertaining to the mistreatment of children. See Chapter 743, Laws of
Maryland 1963. Under this act, codified at former §11A of Article 27
of the Maryland Code, any parent, adoptive parent, or other person who
had permanent or temporary care or custody of a child under the age of
14 years and maliciously beat, struck, or otherwise mistreated the child
to such a degree as to require medical treatment was guilty of a felony
and upon conviction sentenced to not more than fifteen years in prison.
Chapter 743 provided no reporting or investigation procedures.

 In 1966 the General Assembly established the local DSS as the

principal agency to receive and investigate reports of suspected abuse.
See Chapter 221, Laws of Maryland 1966. Under this act, every "health
practitioner, education, health, mental health, or social worker or law
enforcement officer" who contacted, examined, attended or treated a

       This relief can include commitment of the child to the local DSS and

removal of the child from the parent's home. §3-820(c)(1)(ii) of the Courts
Article ("CJ" Article).

child and believed, or had reason to believe, that a child had "sustained
physical injury as a result of abuse" was required to make a report in the
manner provided by statute. The person making the report was required
to do so orally to the local DSS and, if the reporter believed or had
reason to believe that immediate protection was needed, also make a
report to the police. See Article 27, former §11A(c) and (d). Within 48
hours of the contact that disclosed "the possible malicious treatment or
beating," the individual was required to make a written report to the
local DSS and to the local State's Attorney.

 Chapter 221 also implied that an agency other than the local DSS

receiving a report of suspected abuse was not authorized to conduct its
own investigation to determine whether the abuse had occurred. Under
the law at that time, any agency that received an oral or written report
of suspected abuse from a private party was required to refer it to the
local DSS. Former §11A(d). If, after interviewing the private party
who reported the suspected abuse, the local DSS determined that there
was "probable cause" to believe that a violation had occurred, then the
local DSS was required to conduct an investigation as provided by the
act. The State's Attorney, the police, "or social agencies having
jurisdiction" were required to assist in the investigation "[u]pon request
by the local department [of social services]." Former §11A(e) (emphasis
added).10 Thus, as of 1966, the law authorized only the local DSS to
investigate.

 In Chapter 835 of the Laws of Maryland 1973, the General

Assembly for the first time authorized the investigation to be conducted
by the local DSS or the police. Accordingly, Chapter 835 mandated
certain professionals, including educators, to make oral reports of
suspected abuse to either the local DSS or the police. The required
written report was to be sent to the local DSS and a copy to the State's
Attorney. Article 27, former §35A(d).11 Neither the local DSS nor the
police were to proceed alone. Rather, the one to which the oral report
was made was required to immediately notify the other. The local DSS
and the police were not prohibited from jointly agreeing to cooperative
arrangements with other agencies.

       10
          Chapter 221 also established for the first time the local department's

responsibility, based on its findings, to render appropriate services in the best
interests of the child, including, when indicated, petitioning the juvenile court on
behalf of the child for the added protection that either commitment or custody
would provide. Former §11A(f).
11
Former §11A had been recodified as §35A. Chapter 500, Laws of
Maryland 1970.

 In Chapter 296 of the Laws of Maryland 1984, the General

Assembly completely revised, restated, and recodified the laws of
Maryland relating to family matters by enacting the Family Law Article.
As part of that revision, the General Assembly recodified in the new
article the procedures relating to child abuse that formerly appeared in
the criminal code. Nothing suggests that the General Assembly intended
a change in the then existing investigational procedure through that
revision. See Chapter 296, Revisor's Note to FL §5-903.

 In the 1984 Session, the General Assembly also enacted Chapter

611, pertaining specifically to child abuse investigations. Chapter 611
reflected the General Assembly's concern for protection of the child by
requiring, among other things, joint efforts among the agencies
responsible for investigating child abuse.

 Under Chapter 611, the local DSS, the police, and the State's

Attorney within each county were required to enter into a written
agreement that specified standard operating procedures for the
investigation and prosecution of reported cases of child abuse. These
agencies were also required to implement a procedure for conducting
joint investigations of child sexual abuse. Former FL §5-905(e).
Significantly, the joint investigation procedure was required to include
techniques designed to "decrease any trauma experienced by the child in
the investigation and prosecution of the case" and "establish a training
program ... for personnel involved in the investigation and prosecution
of child sexual abuse cases." Former FL §5-905(e)(2).

 Chapter 611 resulted from the work of the Governor's Task Force

on Child Abuse and Neglect. The Task Force's rationale for requiring
joint investigations and special training in sexual abuse cases was "to
assure effective responses to these situations." See Summary of
Preliminary Recommendations for Legislative Action at 5 (1984). The
Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee found that "many counties do not
have cooperative agreements between the local Departments of Social
Services and local law enforcement agencies. As a result efforts are
often duplicated thereby causing more anguish to a child required to
repeat accounts of abuse." The legislative intent, therefore, was "to
promote cooperation between agencies responsible for the investigation
and prosecution of child abuse so as to minimize the emotional and
physical harm caused to the child." See Senate Judicial Proceedings
Committee, Summary of Committee Report for FLB. 348 at 2 (1984).

  In 1987, the General Assembly amended the Family Law Article to

consolidate child abuse and child neglect provisions into one subtitle
entitled "Child Abuse and Neglect" and codified as Subtitle 7 of Title 5.
Chapter 635, Laws of Maryland 1987. The revision continued the
requirement for certain professionals, including educators, to report both
orally and in writing suspected abuse to the local DSS or the police. FL
§5-704. Chapter 635 also amended the statute to require the local DSS,
the police, and the State's Attorney to establish an ongoing training
program for personnel involved in the investigation or prosecution of
sexual abuse cases. FL §5-706(f)(2)(iii).

 In 1988, the General Assembly added one more agency to those

required to enter a joint agreement. Specifically, FL §5-706 now
provides that the local health officer must be included in the written
agreement that specifies standard operating procedures for the
investigation and prosecution of reported cases of suspected abuse. See
Chapter 6, Laws of Maryland 1988.

C. Analysis

 The language and legislative history of the Child Abuse subtitle

leave no doubt that only the local DSS and police may investigate an
allegation of child abuse for the purposes of aiding the child and
prosecuting the abuser. But neither the statutory language nor its history
forecloses a school system's separate investigation, under a separate
grant of authority, for a quite different purpose - deciding whether to
discipline an employee. Indeed, the overall goal of safeguarding
children against abuse is best served by a process that swiftly removes
an abuser from a job involving contact with children.

 We infer a number of legislative objectives from the relevant

statutes: enabling school systems to make a prompt and informed
judgment when deciding on disciplinary action against an employee;
protecting victims of child abuse against the potential trauma of repeated
questioning; and allowing criminal cases against child abusers to be
developed by trained investigators and prosecuted without hindrance.
The task of statutory construction is to find a way to serve all of these
goals. In doing so, we are guided by the conviction that the General
Assembly meant to give primacy in all respects to the child abuse
investigation itself and thus has implicitly limited the otherwise
permissible personnel investigation by the school system.

One overriding requirement of the Child Abuse subtitle is immediate

reporting of instances of suspected abuse. Thus, under no circumstances
may a school system delay reporting an incident while it conducts its
own internal investigation.12

 The legislative history of the subtitle also manifests a legislative

concern that some victims of child abuse, especially very young
children, might be further traumatized if they had to tell their story over
and over again to different investigators. Furthermore, prosecution
might be made more difficult if a defendant had a basis to assert that
clumsy questioning led a child to embroider events. A school board's
personnel investigation must be conducted so as to conform to the
legislative intent about these matters. Thus, we advise that an
investigator for a school board should not attempt to interview the victim
of alleged abuse without the prior approval of the local DSS or the
police.

 More generally, we are of the view that a school system's personnel

investigation should be conducted in a way that minimizes the risk of
interference with the investigation to which the General Assembly has
given primary attention. One can envision situations in which a school
system's investigation might create unintended problems for those
engaged in the investigation under the Child Abuse subtitle - if, for
example, the suspect were alerted prematurely that an investigation was
under way, either directly by the school system investigator or indirectly
by a witness contacted by the school system. To avoid this risk, a
school system conducting a personnel investigation of alleged child
abuse by an employee should notify the local DSS or the police of its
intention to do so and should abide by whatever limitations the primary
investigative agency imposes, particularly on contacts with the alleged
abuser or potential witnesses.

 In addition, the school system must maintain the confidentiality of

the information that it gathers. Article 88A, §6(b) generally provides
that "all records and reports concerning child abuse ... are confidential

    12
       The Howard County Board of Education's policy properly requires

immediate reporting. See Part IA above.

— " (Emphasis added.) The school system may disclose the
information only under the circumstances set out in §6(b).13

 Finally, a school system's conduct of a personnel hearing aimed at

adjudicating the merits of an allegation of child abuse might conceivably
pose a small risk of a collateral estoppel effect on a subsequent criminal
prosecution, if the personnel matter were litigated and the employee
prevailed. While we doubt that all of the requisite elements of collateral
estoppel would be found even in this situation, we urge school systems
not to press forward with a final disciplinary hearing without the
concurrence of the State's Attorney responsible for any prosecution of
the alleged abuser.14

                                    II

         Access to Evidence for Disciplinary Hearing

 We are not aware of any legal requirement that the evidence needed

to sustain a disciplinary action against an employee must be gathered by
the employer, rather than obtained from an agency conducting an
investigation for a different purpose. Thus, if a school system did not
conduct its own investigation but instead relied on the results of the
investigation by the local DSS or the police, the school system might
well gain sufficient evidence indirectly to warrant dismissal of the
employee. In fact, the General Assembly has provided a mechanism -
albeit a cumbersome one, as we shall explain - for a school system to
obtain evidence concerning an investigation of child abuse where the
alleged abuser is a school employee.

Article 88A, §6(b) provides that information contained in reports or

records concerning child abuse may be disclosed to "members of
multidisciplinary case consultation teams, who are investigating a report
of known or suspected child abuse ... or who are providing services to

    13
          Thus, information encompassed by Article 88A, §6(b) would

ordinarily be able to be introduced into evidence at a disciplinary hearing only if
the school system first obtained a court order under §6(b)(1) authorizing that
disclosure. See note 17 below and accompanying text.
14
Findings in a non-criminal proceeding can give rise to collateral
estoppel in a subsequent criminal prosecution, at least where the State itself is a
party in the non-criminal case. See Bowling v. State, 298 Md. 396, 470 A.2d 797
(1984). The test for applying the collateral estoppel doctrine is set out in
Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. TKU Associates, 281 Md. 1, 18-19,
376 A.2d 505 (1977).

a child or family that is the subject of the report." The regulations
adopted pursuant to Article 88A, §6 define a multidisciplinary team as
a "group of professionals which meets regularly to provide consultation
and treatment planning where appropriate, on cases referred from Child
Protective Services, during the investigation or continuing service phase
of local department involvement." COMAR 07.02.07.17A. The local
DSS is to contact appropriate "community agencies and sectors" to seek
membership on a standing multidisciplinary case consultation team.
COMAR 07.02.07.17B. Personnel from educational agencies are
specifically included in the list of "appropriate community agencies."
COMAR 07.02.07.17B.15

 The fact that a school system representative on the multidisciplinary

team may have access to information concerning the child abuse
investigation conducted by the local DSS and the police does not end the
analysis, because the authority to obtain information does not necessarily
imply the authority to disclose it to others. Indeed, Article 88A, §6(b)
provides that "information contained in reports or records concerning
child abuse or neglect" may be disclosed only under certain
circumstances to persons or agencies specified in the statute. As
discussed above, one of these is "members of multidisciplinary case
consultation teams, who are investigating a report of known or suspected
child abuse or neglect or who are providing services to a child or family
that is the subject of the report." Article 88A, §6(b)(2). However, the
statute does not provide authority for members of the multidisciplinary
team to disclose the confidential information contained in such reports
or records to other persons or agencies.16

    15 Disclosure to a school system participant in the multidisciplinary team

is consistent with federal law. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
authorizes grants to the states for the purpose of developing, establishing and
operating programs designed to improve "(1) the handling of child abuse cases,
particularly cases of child sexual abuse, in a manner which limits additional
trauma to the child victim; and (2) the investigation and prosecution of child
abuse, particularly child sexual abuse." 42 U.S.C. §5106c(a) (1988).
Federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Act require a state to "provide
for the prompt initiation of or appropriate investigation by a child protective
agency or other properly constituted authority to substantiate the accuracy of all
reports of known or suspected child abuse or neglect." 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(d)
(emphasis added). Such investigations may include the use of, among other
things, "consultations with other agencies ... and reviews by multidisciplinary
teams." Id. (emphasis added).
16
Improper disclosure of this information is a criminal offense. Article
88A, §6(e).

 Under current law, the only way for the school system to be able to

introduce this information at a disciplinary hearing is to obtain, pursuant
to Article 88A, §6(b)(1), a court order authorizing disclosure of the
information at the hearing.17 The General Assembly may wish to
consider amending Article 88A, §6 to permit limited disclosure of
investigative records in proceedings under ED §6-202 or to authorize
school system officials to attend interviews conducted by police officers
or DSS employees. See Fossey, Child Abuse Investigations in the
Public Schools, 69 Ed. Law Rep. [991] (Nov. 21, 1991).18

                                    III

                   Immunity in Child Abuse Cases

 FL §5-708 provides that any person who makes or participates in

making a report of abuse or participates in an investigation or a resulting
judicial proceeding "shall have the immunity described under §5-362 [of
the Courts Article ("CJ" Article)] from civil liability or criminal
penalty." CJ §5-362 describes that immunity as follows:

              Any person who in good faith makes or
         participates in making a report of abuse or neglect
         under §5-704 or §5-705 of the Family Law Article or
         participates in an investigation or a resulting judicial
         proceeding is immune from any civil liability or
         criminal penalty that would otherwise result from
         making or participating in a report of abuse or neglect
         or participating in an investigation or a resulting
         judicial proceeding.19


    17 In order to preserve the confidentiality of that sensitive information,

the school system should seek an order providing that the hearing be open only
to the parties and their representatives and that the record be sealed. Finally, the
proposed order should provide that any person who further discloses the
information outside of the hearing be subject to appropriate penalties.
18
Such an amendment could be drafted in conformity with confidentiality
requirements of federal law. See 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(i)(3).
19
ED §6-109(a) and CJ §5-354(a)(1) together provide a separate grant
of immunity to school employees who report alleged child abuse as required by
FL §5-704. However, these immunity provisions do not extend to an employee's
participation in an investigation.

We have no doubt that a school system conducting an internal
investigation of suspected child abuse to determine whether to take
disciplinary action against an employee would meet the test of "good
faith." Catterton v. Coale, 84 Md. App. 337, 579 A.2d 781 (1990),
cert. denied, 321 Md. 638, 584 A.2d 67 (1991).

  However, CJ §5-362 specifies that immunity extends to any person

who makes a report of abuse under FL §5-704 or §5-705 or participates
in an investigation or resulting judicial proceeding. The implication is
that the immunity is extended only to persons who follow the procedures
outlined in the Child Abuse subtitle. As discussed in Part I above,
although a school system may conduct an independent personnel
investigation, it does so under the authority of the Education Article, not
the Child Abuse subtitle. FL §5-708 offers no immunity to persons
operating outside of its procedures.

 Two other grants of immunity might apply, however. Under CJ §5-

353(e), employees of a school system are generally not liable
individually for damages resulting from their tortious acts or omissions,
if the employee "act[s] within the scope of employment."20 And under
ED §6-109(b) and CJ §5-354(b), employees are generally not liable
individually for actions while "participat[ing] in an employee dismissal
[or] disciplinary ... proceeding ...," if the action is "[w]ithin the scope
of employment."

 Broadly speaking, an employee acts "within the scope of

employment" if the employee "was advancing his master's interests in
doing what he did at the time he did it." Rusnack v. Giant Food, Inc.,
26 Md. App. 250, 265, 337 A.2d 445, cert. denied, 275 Md. 755
(1975). See also Dhanray v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 62 Md. App.
94, 99, 488 A.2d 512 (1985). A school board employee who
investigates an allegation of child abuse at the instance of a supervisor
is acting in furtherance of the school board's interests.

 Hence, a school system employee, acting in good faith on

instructions of a supervisor, would be able to assert immunity for
tortious acts or omissions in the course of an independent investigation
of alleged child abuse by another board employee. The school board
itself would face liability up to the limits set out in CJ §5-353(b).

    20
       As is usual with statutes of this kind, an employee remains liable for

gross negligence and malicious actions.

                                IV

  Liability for Interference With Child Abuse Investigations

A. Criminal

 We are aware of no provision in the Family Law Article or

elsewhere in the Maryland Code that imposes a criminal penalty for
interference with the child abuse investigation conducted by the local
DSS and the police pursuant to the Child Abuse subtitle. Under some
sets of facts, the offenses of obstructing or hindering a police officer or
obstructing justice might be applicable. See Cover v. State, 297 Md.
398, 466 A.2d 1276 (1983); Sibiga v. State, 65 Md. App. 69, 499 A.2d
485 (1985); Mayne v. State, 45 Md. App. 483, 414 A.2d 1 (1980).
However, proving the requisite criminal intent would be extremely
unlikely when the alleged interference occurred during a school system's
own investigation, conducted for the legitimate purpose of pursuing
potential disciplinary action against an employee.

B. Civil

 The State Board of Education has statutory authority to institute

legal proceedings to enjoin a county board of education from engaging
in certain practices. The State Board "shall determine the elementary
and secondary educational policies of this State" and "adopt bylaws,
rules, and regulations for the administration of the public schools."
ED §2-205(b)(1) and (c)(1). Properly adopted bylaws, rules, and
regulations "have the force of law" and apply to each county (except, in
some instances, to Baltimore City). ED §2-205(c)(2) and (3). The State
Board is authorized to "institute legal proceedings to enforce" its bylaws,
rules, and regulations. ED §2-205(d)(2).

The duties of each county board of education are enumerated in ED

§4-107. These duties include determining, with the advice of the county
superintendent, the educational policies of the county school system.
ED §4-107(3). This determination, however, is "[s]ubject to ... the
applicable bylaws, rules and regulations of the State Board." ED §4-
108(a).

 The State Department of Education has issued a model Child Abuse

and Neglect Policy, revised in December, 1990. The portion of the
policy concerning investigations of suspected child abuse states as
follows:

      Validation of suspected child abuse is the
      responsibility of the department of social services,

     assisted by the police. School personnel shall not
     attempt to conduct any internal investigation or an
     independent review of the facts.

Policy at 10 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the policy recognizes the
use of a multidisciplinary team:

     The local department of social services shall notify
     school reporting sources of the receipt of the report.
     School personnel may request the local department of
     social services to call a multidisciplinary team meeting
     to share information and concerns to the extent
     permitted by the confidentiality statute and to
     coordinate planning for services to the child.
     Appropriate school personnel are expected to
     participate in the team meetings in accordance with the
     procedure established between the local department of
     social services and local school system.

Policy at 11.

This policy, however, is merely a recommendation by the staff of

the State Department of Education, which local school systems may
adopt at their discretion. The policy is not an official "bylaw, rule, or
regulation" of the State Board. Thus, while the policy adopted by the
Howard County Board of Education on June 27, 1991, is inconsistent
with the State model policy, the State Board has no basis to institute
legal proceedings against the Howard County Board for such
noncompliance.

                                V

                     Conflict of Interests

Federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Child Abuse Prevention

and Treatment Act require certain procedures to be followed in cases
where an apparent conflict of interest is involved. Specifically, "when
a report of known or suspected child abuse involves the acts or
omissions of the agency, institution, or facility to which the report
would ordinarily be made, a different properly constituted authority must
receive and investigate the report and take appropriate protective and
corrective action." 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(e) (emphasis added).

 Although no Maryland statute discusses conflict of interest

concerning investigations of suspected child abuse, regulations adopted
pursuant to the Child Abuse subtitle provide for special procedures to be
followed so as to avoid the appearance of conflict "[w]hen a report of
abuse involves acts of an employee of the State or of a local department
in the performance of the employee's duties ...." COMAR
07.02.07.06D.

 No statute or regulation precludes a school system from designating

its own employees to conduct a personnel investigation of a fellow
employee. If such an internal investigation is thought to pose an actual
or apparent conflict of interest, the General Assembly is free, of course,
to mandate alternative procedures.

                                VI

                           Conclusion

  In summary, it is our opinion that:

 1. A county board of education has authority to implement a

policy authorizing a local school system to conduct an internal personnel
investigation, independent of the one conducted by the local DSS or the
police, if the suspected abuser is a school employee. However, the
personnel investigation must not take place until after the alleged abuse
has been reported and is subject to whatever limitations are imposed by
the local DSS or the police. Information about the alleged abuse
obtained during the internal investigation is subject to the confidentiality
requirements of Article 88, §6(b).

 2. In accordance with ED §6-202, tenured school system

employees may be suspended or dismissed for committing child abuse.
A county superintendent of schools need not conduct an internal
investigation of the charges in order to introduce evidence at the
administrative hearing. Rather, evidence obtained by school personnel
in their capacity as members of a multidisciplinary team, properly
authenticated, can be introduced at the hearing. Under current law,
however, the superintendent must get a court order authorizing
disclosure of this confidential information in the administrative forum.

 3. Maryland law provides only limited immunity for a county

board of education that conducts a personnel investigation into
allegations of child abuse by one of its employees. The employees of
the local board carrying out the investigation, however, would be
immune from personal liability.

 4. Although the Family Law Article provides no penalties for

interference with a child abuse investigation, under certain circumstances
a person could be charged with the common law offenses of obstructing
a police officer in the performance of duty or obstruction of justice.
These circumstances are most unlikely to arise during a school system's
personnel investigation, however. With regard to civil sanctions, the
State Board of Education has no legal authority to require local school
boards to adhere to a model State policy, not embodied in bylaw or
regulation, providing that a local school system is not to conduct an
internal investigation of child abuse.

 5. In child abuse cases where a report of suspected abuse alleges

that the abuser is an employee of an agency charged with responsibility
for investigating the report, the other responsible investigative agency
must conduct the investigation in accordance with procedures designed
to avoid the conflict of interest.

                                           J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                           Attorney General

                                           Jack Schwartz
                                           Chief Counsel
                                           Opinions & Advice

                                           Donna R. Heller
                                           Assistant Attorney General