Can a volunteer citizen group, even one sanctioned by the Chief District Court Judge to advise the Juvenile Court on custody review, see the confidential protective service case files DSS keeps on children in foster care?

Plain-English summary

A Durham County attorney asked whether a volunteer citizens' advisory group, sanctioned by the Chief District Court Judge, could review county social-services protective-service records to advise the Juvenile Court about foster-care custody review. The 1980 Attorney General concluded that the records were not available to the group on the facts presented. Access would require a review purpose directly connected with administering public-assistance programs and express authorization under rules of the Social Services Commission or Department of Human Resources.

The opinion applied N.C.G.S. 108-45(a)'s confidentiality rule to the records. It relied on an earlier AG opinion concerning child-abuse and neglect records and extended that reasoning to dependency, custody, and foster-care records. It also quoted federal confidentiality requirements in 45 C.F.R. 205.50, including comparable standards for people receiving protected information.

N.C.G.S. 7A-675 separately addressed juvenile records and said certain records could be examined only by order of the judge, apart from the juvenile's own access. The AG found no inconsistency with N.C.G.S. 108-45(a) and read the two provisions together. It did not decide what effect an order for this group would have, distinguish individual orders from broader access, or rule on voluntary confidentiality agreements.

The decisive facts were that the group did not appear to be part of a governmental agency or authorized by law for the proposed functions, and no applicable rule was identified. The opinion's conclusion left access conditional on a directly connected administrative purpose expressly covered by a Commission or Department rule.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1980 under the statutes and regulations quoted here. Check current North Carolina juvenile-records and social-services confidentiality law before applying it today.

What this means for you

County social-services staff. The judge's sanction of a volunteer group did not establish the rule-based authorization the AG required on the facts presented. The opinion's answer is about the described group and records.

Citizen review groups. The opinion identifies the condition for access as a directly connected program purpose expressly authorized in Social Services Commission or Department rules. It does not offer a separate route based on a confidentiality agreement or predict the result of a particular judicial order.

Common questions

Did the Chief District Court Judge's sanction itself grant access?

The AG concluded the group described in the request could not obtain the records without the specified rule-based program authorization. It did not analyze the legal effect of a separate order directing disclosure to the group.

Did N.C.G.S. 7A-675 override the public-assistance confidentiality statute?

The opinion found no inconsistency between them and said they should be read in pari materia. It did not decide that a general judicial sanction displaced N.C.G.S. 108-45(a).

Would a signed confidentiality agreement change the result?

The opinion does not address that question. It quotes a federal comparable-confidentiality-standards requirement but does not analyze voluntary undertakings.

Could a judge order access to selected records?

N.C.G.S. 7A-675's quoted text addresses examination by order of a judge, but this opinion gives no ruling about a proposed order for the advisory group or its scope.

Background and statutory framework

N.C.G.S. 108-45(a) restricted obtaining, using, or disclosing information about people applying for or receiving public assistance, with a stated exception for purposes directly connected with program administration under Commission or Department rules. The opinion cites 45 C.F.R. 205.50 for federal confidentiality requirements and N.C.G.S. 7A-675 for juvenile records. It reconciles the state provisions without resolving any hypothetical order for the volunteer group.

Citations

• N.C.G.S. 7A-516 et seq.
• N.C.G.S. 108-45(a)
• N.C.G.S. 7A-675
• 45 C.F.R. 205.50
• 47 N.C.A.G. 211, at 213

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/confidentiality-of-recordsjuvenile-protective-service-case-records/

Original opinion text

Requested By: Thomas Russell Odom Assistant County Attorney Durham County Durham, North Carolina

Question: May a volunteer advisory group of local citizens under sanction from the Chief District Court Judge, obtain and review protective service case records of juveniles maintained by the county department of social services for the purpose of advising the Juvenile Court as to the need for review of custody of children being maintained in foster homes under the supervision of the county department of social services?

Conclusion: The protective service case records are not available to such a group unless review of the records is for purposes directly connected with the administration of programs of public assistance and is expressly authorized by the rules and regulations of the Social Services Commission or the Department of Human Resources.

Custody of a juvenile is vested in a county department of social services ("DDS") either by consent of the (parents) of the juvenile or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Adjudications of custody in such circumstances will normally arise upon a petition alleging that the juvenile is abused, neglected or dependent, as those terms are defined in the Juvenile Code (N.C.G.S. 7A-516 et seq.). Placement of the juvenile in a foster home or foster care facility follows vesting of custody in the county department of social services.

Records relating to obtaining custody and to placement in foster care are maintained by the county DSS. This Office has previously rendered an opinion, published in 47 N.C.A.G. 211, at 213, to the effect that the provisions of N.C.G.S. 108-45 apply to ". . . all records in the several county departments of social services concerning reports of child abuse and neglect . . ." Under the reasoning in that opinion, the statute clearly extends to records relating to dependency, custody and foster care.

N.C.G.S. 108-45(a) provides:

"(a) Except as provided in (b) below, it shall be unlawful for any person to obtain, disclose or use, or to authorize, permit, or acquiesce in the use of anay list of names or other information concerning persons applying for or receiving public assistance that may be directly or indirectly derived from the records, files or communications of the Department of Human Resources or the county boards of social services, or acquired in the course of performing official duties except for purposes directly connected with the administration of the programs of public assistance in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Social Services Commission or the Department of Human Resources."

The exception referred to, appearing in subsection (b) of the statute, is not pertinent here.

Certain aspects of the State's juvenile program are funded in part by the federal government. N.C.G.S. 108-45(a) complies with the federal regulation appearing in 45 C.F.R. 205.50, which requires in pertinent part, that states receiving such federal funds have statutes limiting use or disclosure of information concerning applicants for or recipients of financial assistance or services to purposes directly connected with: (1) administration of the program; (2) investigations, prosecutions or criminal or civil proceedings conducted in connection with administration of the program; and (3) the administration of any other Federal or federally assisted program providing assistance directly to individuals on the basis of need.

It is noted that the regulation specifically forbids ". . . disclosure to any committee or legislative body (Federal, State or local) of any information that identifies by name and address any such applicant or recipient . . ." Further, disclosure is restricted to persons subject to standards of confidentiality comparable to those applicable to the county and State social service agencies; and the same policies regarding confidentiality are to be applied to requests for information ". . . from a governmental authority, the courts, or a law enforcement official as from any other outside source."

N.C.G.S. 7A-675 also speaks to the confidentiality of juvenile records and provides, inter alia:

"(c) The Director of the Department of Social Services shall maintain a record of the cases of juveniles under protective custody by his Department or other placement by the court. . .

"(d) The records maintained pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) may be examined only by order of the judge except that the juvenile shall have the right to examine them.

"(g) Disclosure of information concerning any juvenile under investigation or alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the court that would reveal the identity of that juvenile is prohibited except that publication of pictures of runaways is permitted with the permission of the parent.

"(h) Nothing in this section shall preclude the necessary sharing of information among authorized agencies."

The clear intent evinced by N.C.G.S. 108-45(a) and 45 C.F.R. 205.50 is that access to the records in question shall be maintained in strict confidentiality, with the sole exception that they may be made available ". . . for purposes directly connected with the administration of the programs of public assistance in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Social Services Commission or the Department of Human Resources." We find nothing inconsistent between this intent and the provisions of N.C.G.S. 7A-675, and we are of the opinion that the statutes should be construed in pari materia.

From the information supplied, it does not appear that the voluntary advisory group is a part of any federal, State or local agency or that it is authorized by law to perform the functions proposed. We conclude, therefore, that unless the advisory group falls specifically within a rule promulgated by the Social Services Commission or the Department of Human Resources ". . . for purposes directly connected with the administration of the programs . . .", the advisory group is not authorized to obtain and review protective service case records of juveniles.

Rufus L. Edmisten
Attorney General

Henry T. Rosser
Assistant Attorney General