Could South Carolina’s Juvenile Parole Board share a juvenile’s records with other agencies to make release decisions?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina's Juvenile Parole Board asked whether it could give other government agencies information about juveniles drawn from records received from the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Attorney General said the better reading of the 1998 statutes permitted the Board to share records with other agencies while carrying out release and discharge functions. He suggested using the same standard that governed the department's transfers: disclosure should be “necessary and appropriate to ensure the provision and coordination of services and assistance to a juvenile.”

The opinion recognized that the cited confidentiality provisions expressly addressed court and Department of Juvenile Justice records, not later disclosure by the Board. It rejected both an unrestricted-transfer reading and a reading that would require a separate Family Court order for every further agency disclosure. The AG warned the statutes were not clear and requested legislative clarification. He expressly limited the answer to release to other agencies, leaving disclosures to victims under other provisions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the Board share juvenile records with another agency for release planning?
A: The AG said yes, using a standard of necessity and appropriateness for coordinating the juvenile's services and assistance.

Q: Did the opinion say all juvenile records were public after DJJ sent them to the Board?
A: No. The AG rejected a reading that would leave no standards for later Board disclosures.

Q: Did the answer cover victim access to records?
A: No. The opinion confined its conclusion to other agencies and said separate provisions addressed releases to victims.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion compared the confidentiality and authorized-transfer rules in Sec. 20-7-8505 and Section 20-7-8510 with the Board's role under § 20-7-8305. It reasoned that the Board needed agency information to decide releases, conditions and revocations, while still applying a limiting standard to any further disclosure.

Citations and references

• Sec. 20-7-8505, the Department of Juvenile Justice transfer rule quoted by the opinion.
• Section 20-7-8510, the confidentiality rule discussed by the opinion.
• § 20-7-8305, the Board's review and release authority discussed by the opinion.

Official title

Noting that “on several occasions it has been requested by certain state governmental entities, agencies and departments that the [Juvenile] Parole Board provide certain information pertaining to juveniles from our agency’s records.”

Requester

Karen A. Walto, Chairperson, Board of Juvenile Parole

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-21-1998-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/98sept21walto.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

September 21, 1998

Karen A. Walto, Chairperson
Board of Juvenile Parole
Santee Building, Suite 103
100 Executive Center
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Re: Informal Opinion
Dear Ms. Walto:
You note that "on several occasions it has been requested by certain state governmental entities, agencies and departments that the [Juvenile] Parole Board provide certain information pertaining to juveniles from our agency's records." You reference S.C. Code Ann. Secs. 20-7-8505 and 20-7-8510. Indicating that "[i]t is certainly our desire to maintain strict compliance with the confidentiality requirements of the referenced code section," you, nevertheless, are "unclear with regard to the limitations which are complied from records provided to us by the Department of Juvenile Justice." Thus, you seek an opinion concerning §§'s 20-7-8505 and -8510. Law I Analysis S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 20-7-8505 provides in pertinent part as follows:
[r]ecords and information of the department [of Juvenile Justice] shall be confidential as provided in Section 20-7-851 O; provided, however, that where necessary and appropriate to ensure the provision and coordination of services and assistance to a juvenile under the custody or supervision of the department, the director must establish policies by which the department may transmit such information and records to REMflElff

c. DENNIS B IJI LDIN(;

~~~~ .

•

POST OFFICE Box 1154')

•

COLUMBIA. S. C. 29211-1549

•

Tl'l .El'lltJNI' : 80.1-7 .14 - .\'}70

•

FACS l ~111.I'.: XOJ-251 -628.1

Ms. Walto
Page 2
September 21, l 998
another department or agency of state or local government, a
school district, or a private institution or facility licensed by
the State as a child-serving organization, where such is
required for admission or enrollment of the juvenile into a
program of services, treatment or education.
Section 20-7-85 l 0 further states that
(A)

The court shall make and keep records of all cases
brought before it and shall devise and cause to be
printed forms for social and legal records and other
papers as may be required. The official juvenile
records of the courts and the Department of Juvenile
Justice are open to inspection only by consent of the
judge to persons having a legitimate interest but always
must be available to the legal counsel of the juvenile.
Except as provided in subsection (B), all information
obtained and social records prepared in the discharge of
official duty by an employee of the court or
Department of Juvenile Justice are confidential and
must not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone,
other than the judge or others entitled under this article
to receive this information, unless otherwise ordered by
the judge. However, these records are open to
inspection without the consent of the judge where the
records are necessary to defend against an action
initiated by a juvenile.

(B)

The Department of Juvenile Justice, if requested, shall
provide the victim of a crime with the name and other
basic descriptive information about the juvenile justice
system, the status and disposition of the delinquency
action including hearing dates, times and locations, and
services available to victims of juvenile crime. The
name, identity, or picture of a child under the
jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to this chapter, must
not be provided to or made public by a newspaper or
radio or television station except as authorized by order
of the court or unless the juvenile has been bound over
to a court which would have trial jurisdiction of the

I

I
i

~

I
rm
I
j

Ms. Walto
Page 3
September 21, 1998
offense if committed by an adult or the juvenile has
been adjudicated delinquent in family court for:

I
I

( l)

a violent crime as defined in Section 161-60;

(2)

grand larceny of a motor vehicle;

(3)

a crime in which a weapon was used;

(4)

distribution or trafficking in unlawful
drugs as defined in Article 3, Chapter 53
of Title 44.

The role of the Juvenile Parole Board has been summarized by one treatise writer
as follows:
[t]he Juvenile Parole Board is charged with reviewing the
progress ofjuvenile offenders committed to the custody ofDJJ
and making the decision to release or revoke release. The
parole board has the authority to issue temporary and final
discharges or releases to those c~ldren in its custody along
with conditions for their care once they have left the
institution. The parole board may order restitution as a
condition of institutional release.
21 S.C. Juris. § 113, pp. 99-100. Section 20-7-8305(B) provides that
[i]n the determination of the type of discharges or conditional
releases granted, the parole board shall consider the interests
of the person involved and the interests of society and shall
employ the services of and consult with the personnel of the
Reception and Evaluation Center. The parole board may from
time to time modify the conditions of discharges or
conditional releases previously granted.
Furthermore, § 20-7-80 I 0 states that "[ t]rom the time of the lawful reception of a child
into custody by the department [of Juvenile Justice] and during the period of custody, the
department shall provide for, either solely or in cooperation with other agencies, the
care, custody and control of the child .... " (emphasis added).

Ms. \Valto
Page 4
September 21, l 998
In addition, § 20-7-83 l 5(A) charges the Department of Juvenile Justice "with the
responsibility of making aftercare investigations to determine suitable placement for
children considered for conditional release from the con-ectional schools. The department
shall also have the responsibility of supervising the aftercare program, making revocation
investigations, and submitting findings to the parole boa.rd."

I

I

i

6

Thus, the question here is whether the Juvenile Parole Board may release the
records of a juvenile to other agencies? Put another way, do the same standards govern
the Juvenile Parole in releasing juvenile records to other agencies as control DJJ in
providing such records to the Juvenile Parole Board? It is clear that the statutes in
question [§§ 20-7-8505 and -851 O] literally address the provision of records to other
agencies by the Department of Juvenile Justice rather than by the Juvenile Parole Board.
Section 20-7-8510 makes the official juvenile records of the courts and DJJ open to
inspection "only by consent of the judge to persons having a legitimate interest" [except
that such records are always available to the legal counsel of the juvenile]. Such
provision further states that juvenile records, except where such information from such
records are being provided to victims, "are confidential and must not be disclosed directly
or indirectly to anyone, other than the judge or others entitled under this article to receive
this information, unless otherwise ordered by the judge." Again, such latter limitation is
expressly placed upon an employee of the court or DJJ. In § 20-7-8505, mention is
similarly made only of juvenile records held by DJJ; such Section provides that "[r]ecords
and information of the department pertaining to juveniles shall be confidential as
provided in Section 20-7-8510 [except] ... where necessary and appropriate to ensure the
provision and coordination of services and assistance to a juvenile under the custody or
supervision of the department .... " This provision requires that "the director [of DJJ] must
establish policies by which the department may transmit such information and records to
another department or agency of state or local government .... " None of these statutory
provisions make reference to the records of a juvenile where such records are in the
custody of the Juvenile Parole Board.
A number of principles of statutory construction are relevant here. First and
foremost, is the fundamental tenet that in interpreting a statute, the primary purpose is to
ascertain the intent of the Legislature. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697
( 1987). A statutory provision should be given a reasonable and practical construction
which is consistent with the purpose and policy expressed therein. Jones v. S.C. State
Highway Dept., 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). Words used in an enactment
should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Smith v. Eagle Const. Co., 282 S.C.
140, 3 18 S. E.2d 8 (1984). Moreover, it is well recognized that the enumeration of certain
matters in a statute excludes others. Pa. Natl. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Parker, 282 S.C. 546,

Ms. vValto
Page 5
September 21, 1998
320 S.E.2d 458 (S.C. App. 1984). Statutes in pari materia should be construed together
in order to render both operative. Lewis v. Gaddy, 254 S.C. 66, 173 S.E.2d 3 76 (I 970).

I
I

l~

I

Several alternative readings are available in this instance. These statutes could be
read literally in one of two ways. First, the statutes could be interpreted based upon the
fact that they only govern DJJ and the Family Court and that, once juvenile records are
properly turned over to the Juvenile Parole Board, there is no further restriction upon such
records. This reading is particularly appealing inasmuch as the Legislature did not attempt
to make such records continue to be confidential once they were turned over to another
as authorized in the statute. For example, no restriction is placed upon use of such
records by a victim upon the transfer of confidential information to the victim. See, § 207-8505(B). Alternatively, the statutes could be read in pari materia to the effect that
juvenile records are absolutely confidential, unless released by an order of the Family
Court, and the only exception to such an order is release by DJJ to other agencies "where
necessary and appropriate to ensure the provision and coordination of services and
assistance to a juvenile under the custody or supervision of the department .... " In other
words, a literal interpretation along these lines would lead to the conclusion that the
Juvenile Parole Board is not authorized to release juvenile records to other agencies
without express Family Court approval. The problem with this construction is the harsh
burden such restriction would place upon the Juvenile Parole Board in carrying out its
duties to determine whether a juvenile should be discharged.
While there is ambiguity in the referenced statutory provisions, it is my opinion
that the most sensible way to construe these provisions is that the General Assembly
intended to place the same limitations upon the release of the juvenile records by the
Juvenile Parole Board that are imposed upon DJJ. It makes common sense for the very
same provisions concerning release of juvenile records which govern DJJ to also
encompass the Juvenile Parole Board.
A recent opinion of this Office, dated November 14, 1996 is instructive in this
regard. That Opinion referenced Op. Atty. Gen., Op. No. 84-126 (October 29, 1984)
which recognized that the Juvenile Parole Board "acts as the paroling authority to
determine the release of children who have been committed by Family Court to
correctional facilities of the South Carolina Department of Youth Services [now
Department of Juvenile Justice]." There, we emphasized that it is the Juvenile Parole
Board rather than the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Juvenile Justice,
which is authorized by law to discharge or conditionally release a juvenile. In this regard,
we distinguished between physical and legal custody and concluded that legal custody of
a juvenile is the Juvenile Parole Board until the Board discharges or conditionally
discharges the juvenile. We commented as follows:

Ms. Walto
Page 6
September 21, 1998

l

[i]n summary neither DMH nor DJJ possesses the authority to
discharge a juvenile committed to DJJ from DJJ's legal
custody or to agree to such discharge. Such authority is, by
statute, expressly reserved to the Juvenile Parole Board.
Section 20-7-7815 in no way alters this authority, but merely
authorizes DJJ to transfer physical custody of a juvenile
determined to be mentally ill or retarded to another institution
for treatment. ...

I
I

See also, Golden v. State Bd. of Juvenile Placement and Aftercare, 266 S.C. 427, 223
S.E.2d 777 (1976) [referencing present§ 20-7-8305 which authorizes the Board "to review
the records and progress of children committed to the custody of the Department of
Juvenile Justice for the purpose of deciding the release or revocation of release of these
children."]

I
~

!
I

In other words, the very same policy considerations governing the provision of
juvenile records by DJJ to other agencies as part of the treatment, rehabilitation and
physical custody of juveniles would govern the Juvenile Parole Board in deciding whether
to discharge, conditionally release or revoke such conditional release of a juvenile.
Certainly, the Juvenile Parole Board would need input from other state agencies in
carrying out its duties. See Op. Atty. Gen., June 2, 1978 ["each action taken by the Board
[must] be in the best interest of the child and society. In addition to the authority to grant
releases, the Board also has the authority to place conditions and restrictions on the
juvenile offender's release under the caveat that each child is placed in a proper
environment and receives appropriate rehabilitative services."] Clearly, the Board would
have great difficulty carrying out these functions if it were unable to provide a juvenile's
records to another state agency to determine what conditions to place upon the juvenile's
release. Such an obstacle would make the Board's duties virtually impossible to carry out.
This may be why the Legislature did not expressly mandate that the agency which
properly receives a juvenile's records from DJJ (such as Juvenile Parole Board) must then
itself keep such records confidential. This also probably explains why the Legislature did
not see fit to restrict the Juvenile Parole Board in § 20-7-8305 when it specifically
authorized the Board to "review the records and progress of children committed to the
custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of deciding the release or
revocation of release of these children." Our Supreme Court has cautioned against an
overly literal interpretation of a statute where such may not be consistent with legislative
intent. In Greenville Baseball, Inc. v. Bearden, 200 S.C. 363, 20 S.E.2d 813 (1942), the
Court recognized that

Ms. Walto
Page 7
September 21, 1998
[i]t is a familiar canon of construction that a thing which is in
the intention of the makers of a statute is as much within the
statute as if it were within the letter. It is an old and wellestablished rule that words ought to be subservient to the
intent, and not the intent to the words.

I
I

Id. at 368-3 69. Thus, it is my opinion that the preferable reading of the statute is that the
Juvenile Parole Board may release juvenile records to other state agencies. A good
standard for such release is the same one which governs DJJ, i.e. that such release is "...
necessary and appropriate to ensure the provision and coordination of services and
assistance to a juvenile .... " This reading strikes a balance between requiring on one hand
a Family Court to approve on a case-by-case basis further release by the agency to which
DJJ has provided juvenile records and on the other, there being a total lack of standards
to govern the release of records by the Juvenile Parole Board. Of course, this conclusion
only relates to the release of records to other agencies, as release of records to victims is
dealt with in other provisions of the statutes in question.
I must also caution that the foregoing statutes are not clear and definitive as to your
question. Legislative clarification would certainly be desirable to clarify the Juvenile
Parole Board's authority in this area. However, in the meantime, I am of the opinion that
the Juvenile Parole Board may release juvenile records to other agencies in carrying out
its parole and discharge functions, as discussed above.
This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated
Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney
as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the
Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.
With kind regards, I am

RDC/an