A spokeswoman for Montgomery County Public Schools declined to answer questions... ...The case took a year to put together...

 

Prosecutor alleges Md. parents watched teen daughter ‘slowly die’

The 911 call was bad enough: an unresponsive teenager inside a Maryland townhouse. It was only when police arrived that they understood the full horror of what was happening.

A 17-year-old victim, who weighed 79 pounds and for months couldn’t move on her own, had been living on a makeshift bed in the living room, the windows of the home covered in blankets, officials said Thursday. Inside were the girl’s parents and six other minor children as young as four years old, according to court records...

...Maryland law stipulates that parents or guardians who opt to home-school their kids have to annually verify their home-school program with the local school system or another institution that provides oversight.

The parents are required to submit reviews to the local school system. and school officials can ask for material that proves the student is receiving regular instruction. But the reviews can only be conducted at a time and place mutually agreed on by both the parents and the school system.

Montgomery County Public Schools requires reviews in December or January and May or June of each year, said schools spokeswoman Jessica Baxter, but there is no state requirement that students have to be present for their reviews — only their academic work does. Baxter declined to provide information about whether annual reviews were conducted for the Moore family in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years, again citing privacy laws...

Prosecutor alleges Md. parents watched teen daughter ‘slowly die’ - The Washington Post

MoCo Senator Susan Lee Wants to Compromise on Student Safety. MCPS Administrators can Escape Criminal Penalty Even if They Suspect Sexual Abuse of MCPS Students Under Her Bill.

Montgomery County Senator Susan Lee wants the Maryland legislature to pass her bill, Senate Bill  568, that would provide for criminal penalties for administrators who fail to report sexual abuse of children only when they have ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the abuse.

Senator Lee says this bill is "not as broad" as she would have preferred but that the bill has been written this way because of "anticipated resistance."  [WHO IN MARYLAND IS RESISTANT TO PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL ABUSE?]

Senator Lee says this bill would encourage mandatory reporters to report for the "most obvious incidences" of sexual abuse.  [IF IT ISN'T OBVIOUS, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO REPORT?]

Senator Lee says her bill is a "compromise."  Senator Lee says she "brought the stakeholders together and this was sort of a compromise."  [Senator Lee did not bring the following stakeholders together:  Professor Lynn McLain, Ernest Crofoot, Theresa Lancaster, Jennifer Alvaro, or Ellen Mugmon. None of these stakeholders agree to Senator Lee's compromise.]

Nor did Senator Lee bring to the table any of the victims of sexual abuse in MCPS schools by MCPS teachers John Vigna, Lawrence Joynes or Jose Pineda.  In each of those MCPS cases multiple administrators knew about inappropriate behavior and suspected sexual abuse but did not report that information to the police.  In each of those cases the failure of the mandated reporters to call the police contributed to the victimization of addition children.  Which of those victims have agreed to Senator Lee's compromise?

Senator Lee's bill would do nothing to get MCPS administrators to report suspected sexual abuse of students.  MCPS would continue to be able to cover up these crimes under Senate Bill 568.  Why? Because Senator Susan Lee does not want to impose criminal penalties on administrators who fail to report the sexual abuse of students unless those administrators actually witness the sexual abuse with their own eyes and identify the act that they see as sexual abuse.  

Which of the Vigna, Joynes and Pineda victims who were victims of these sexual predators after those predators were already known to MCPS administrators (as evidenced by letters telling each predator to STOP TOUCHING STUDENTS) agreed to Senator Susan Lee's "compromise?" [NONE!]

The video below shows Senator Susan Lee presenting her Senate Bill 568 to the House Judiciary Committee on March 27, 2019.  After Senator Susan Lee speaks the Chair of the Committee, Luke Clippinger brought up Ellen Mugmon to speak in opposition to the bill. 

.@SenatorSusanLee Comment on Your Bill: "psychiatrists who treat pedophiles have looked for a backdoor way to reinstate it. They have found it in SB 568/HB 787 (your bill).

Oppose SB 568/HB 787 Crimes - Child Abuse and Neglect - Failure to Report

Submitted by Ellen Mugmon

March 27, 2019

Former Legislative Chair of the State Council on Child Abuse and Neglect

No State or the Federal Government Has a Law Like This

The purpose of SB 568/HB 787, as amended, is to take the child abuse reporting penalty issue off everyone’s plate and at the same time protect from accountability powerful professional groups and institutions by establishing an impossible evidentiary standard under Maryland law, ”actual knowledge,” and secondly, by overruling a significant 1993 Attorney General’s opinion that requires the reporting of child abuse after the victim turns eighteen. See Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 189 (Dec. 3, 1993). The bills also have a one year statute of limitations, which means that if the failure to report is not found out by authorities within a year, there could not be a prosecution.

Then Attorney General Curran stated the following: “If we accept the proposition that no reporting were required if the victim is now an adult, we would be saying that there would be no duty to report if an eighteen year old had been subject to recent abuse and had younger siblings at home in the care of the abuser. That would be an untenable construction of the statute, one that we cannot imagine the General Assembly intended.”

As the Baltimore City State’s Attorney noted in her written testimony in 2018 on SB 132/ HB 500, the same bill as SB 568/HB 787, except for the penalty: “It is nearly impossible from a legal perspective to prove that an individual had “actual knowledge” of abuse, especially if the mandatory reporter contends that they did not see the abuse occur and did not believe the child’s disclosure.”

Requiring “actual knowledge” of the abuse before a mandatory reporter could be prosecuted for failure to report it is a higher standard of knowledge than beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors do not need to witness a crime as it is occuring in order convict an individual for committing it.

Thus, this bill is NOT a compromise as proponents claim. It is NOT a small step forward either. Rather, it is a complete and harmful capitulation to the Maryland Catholic Conference and powerful professional groups which once and for all want to end the pressure to bring Maryland law into the mainstream with legislation that that could actually result in convictions.

To argue about the differences in a penalty that will never be applied egregiously misses the point. The Committee has a moral obligation to acknowledge all the defects in this bill and then reject it.

Those Who Don’t Know History Are Doomed To Repeat It.

The Maryland Catholic Conference has for 26 years attempted, whenever the opportunity arose, to get out from under 78Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 189 (Dec. 3, 1993). In the face of this third explosion of the horrific clergy abuse scandal, it would be unconscionable for the Committee to agree to the restrictions in this bill, which would be unique to Maryland.

While the Committee should be commended for voting favorably on HB 687, which remediates a statute which was supposed to remediate the previous statute of limitations law, it is understood that it is not likely to make it out of the Senate. The passage of SB 568/HB 787 will be another slap in the face to the survivors who supported that bill and equally oppose this one.

After the SOL bill was enacted during the 2017 session, the press, advocates and survivors mistakenly hailed its passage. They did not realize that the extension of the time period to allow a suit to be filed was meaningless because the bill had been drafted behind the scenes to make it impossible for survivors to prevail.

It would be wrong for any legislator to claim a so called victory for child protection, should this bill pass, knowing full well that it is unworkable and that the “[i]nclusion of subsection (c) in proposed Crim. L. 3-602.2 could well be read by the courts to mean that the General Assembly has now taken a policy view counter to that of the of the A.G.’s Opinion-- that reporting when an identified victim has reached the age of majority is unimportant. Such a reading would leave at risk innumerable children in an abusers sphere.” (Professor Lynn Mclain, February 26, 2018)

Since the notorious Berlin pedophile exemption (unique to Maryland) was repealed in 1989, psychiatrists who treat pedophiles have looked for a backdoor way to reinstate it. They have found it in SB 568/HB 787. Disclosures by pedophiles do not meet the “actual knowledge” standard, the highest form of knowledge in law. Pedophiles do not rape children in front of those providing treatment to them. In the pre-1993 handling of his cases, Dr. Berlin refused to report when a relative molested his niece because she was nineteen even though she had a younger sister at risk. This bill would not penalize him if he did so again

Attorney General Frosh is currently investigating the Catholic Church in Maryland. Why is this Committee jumping the gun to provide new protections from accountability for the hierarchy when it fails to report? The Committee should not rely on Bishop Lori’s reforms, which call for parishioners to report child sexual abuse to the Church, first and foremost, rather than to the authorities. Setting up internal investigations prior to reporting to determine credibility by the Church’s own standards, thereby compromising police and social services investigations, is a self serving procedure which will not lead to the truth. Bishop Lori, while usurping governmental functions in plain sight, is supporting these bills.

None of the Penn State officials convicted of failing to report Sandusky to authorities could have been convicted in Maryland under the “actual knowledge” standard in this bill. None of them had “actual knowledge” of Sandusky’s abuse. That is why this bill is a pretense.

The Congressional bipartisan federal law enacted after the USA Gymnastics scandal states: "When a mandatory reporter learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse ... and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection(a) of that section, [the mandatory reporter] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than year or both."

Why should it be that Maryland children in USA Gymnastics programs are better protected than all other Maryland children under SB 568/HB 787?

Without the 1993 opinion, the shocking disclosures of the notorious Maskell Case would never have come to light, as chronicled in the Netflix series, The Keepers. The Baltimore Archdiocese concedes this point in its response to the Keepers on its website. (See also in this regard: “Catholic Officials Knew of Teacher’s Abuse, Court Files Indicate,” by Tricia Bishop, The Baltimore Sun, November, 25, 2012 and“U-Md. Lawyers Didn’t Tell Police That Swim Coach Rick Curl Had Abused a Teen Girl,” by Amy Brittain, The Baltimore Sun, May 29, 2013.

Scandals in Maryland now include the cover-ups and failure to report by the Catholic Church, the ongoing scandals in the Montgomery County Schools, the Ron Price scandal in Anne Arundel County, the Deonte Carraway scandal in Prince George’s County, and more recently the scandal in the Baltimore Orthodox Jewish Community. These scandals will continue until there are successful prosecutions for failure to report, which cannot happen under this legislation.

Do Not invoke the #MeToo Movement in Support of This Bill

Proponents claim that SB 568/HB 787 is in line with the goals of #MeToo which are to increase the power of victims to be believed, to increase the protection of women and children, and to expand the possibility of justice. But this legislation is actually antithetical to the movement because it would automatically discount disclosures of abuse by child and adult victims alike, since these disclosures most assuredly would not meet the “actual knowledge” standard.

Absolutely no one, especially Rachael Denhollander, an activist and survivor of Larry Nassar’s whom proponents invoke, nor any other of the more than 250 victims of the USA Gymnastics scandal, would ever consider coming to Maryland to testify for such a backward bill. Ms. Denhollander was the first victim to come forward publicly. She was 31-years-old when she disclosed her victimization when she was 15-years-old. A mandated reporter under this bill could say that she was too old to require a report and that her disclosure did not provide the requisite “actual knowledge,” either.

It is appalling that SB 568/HB 787 mirrors provisions in the USA Gymnastics’ policy which caused the decades long cover-up of a terrible scandal. Steve Penny, the former director of USA Gymnastics, did not report the abuse because he deemed disclosures by victims and even allegations by other coaches as second or third hand information which did not prove to him that the abuse actually occurred. Moreover, his investigator stated that she did not report complaints by gymnasts who had turned eighteen because they were no longer children. It did not matter that they were children when they were abused or that other children were in the hands of a prolific 54-year-old pedophile. What mattered was the policy which protected the reputation of the organization.

Sending The Wrong Message - Undermining Maryland’s Reporting Law

Proponents insist that the bill would not undermine the underlying civil reporting law since the language of the civil reporting law would not be changed. This is false. Two reporting standards muddy the obligation to report suspected abuse and complicate and confuse training. Because there would be no criminal penalty based on the "reason to believe" standard, why would mandatory reporters follow the civil law, especially those not subject to professional penalties? Consequently, this bill would delay or have an overall chilling effect on reporting. It would encourage reporters to wait until they knew for sure that abuse has occurred or eventually fail to report at all. It would also encourage administrators such as those in Montgomery County continue to keep secret lists of possible perpetrators and perform internal investigations prior to reporting instead of reporting immediately. This endangers children.

Child Protection Lip Service

Supporters of this bill are up front. They admit that the bill is intended to protect mandatory reporters. They state that the bill “would be the most lenient toward adults, i.e. mandatory reporters, than any other law in the entire United States or its territories.” During a meeting prior to the session, it was stated that the Committee in 2018 had concerns about the “actual knowledge” language and it was out for this session. Why must we now accept the nonsensical mantra from proponents that something is better than nothing, when this legislation is worse than nothing?

Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect is the very foundation of the child protection system. But this bill is so flawed that if it were enacted, the safety and protection of children would be compromised far more than it is under current law. For these reasons, I request 568/HB 787 be given an unfavorable report. 

Oppose SB 568 HB 787 Ellen ... by on Scribd

States like Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, are ahead of the State of Maryland when it comes to protecting children. SB 568, as presently constituted, makes Maryland a laughing stock. @SenatorSusanLee

The Hon. Luke Clippinger, Chair

The Hon. Vanessa E. Atterbeary, Vice-Chair

Judiciary Committee

SB0568/CFHB0787 – Crimes – Child Abuse and Neglect – Failure to Report

Hearing: March 27, 2019 – 1:00 p.m.

Written Testimony of Ernest A. Crofoot, Attorney

Think about this: ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, and MISSISSIPPI!!!

Good afternoon. I am Ernest A. Crofoot. I am an attorney, graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law, a Fellow of the Maryland Bar Foundation, member of the Peer Review Committee of the Attorney Grievance Commission, and an Ethics instructor for the Academy for Excellence in Local Government. My written and oral testimony on this bill are my own personal assessments and do not reflect the position of any group, organization, board or commission. I recently began providing assistance on this topic to other advocates.

Let me say first that I support, encourage, and beg the Legislature to pass legislation in this area – one with teeth, one with effective protection for child abuse victims, and one that values children victims over the concerns of highly funded special interest groups.

Senate Bill 568 is a half-hearted, flawed, and short sighted attempt to create an incentive for the timely and compassionate reporting by statutorily required reporters of suspected child abuse. Unfortunately, its shortcomings swallow any meager benefits it may otherwise offer.

First, and most importantly, SB 568 sets an impossible evidentiary standard by, in effect, requiring that one must have “actual knowledge” before one is required to report child abuse. In other submitted testimony, you will see that none other than Professor Emerita LynnMcLain, University of Baltimore School of Law, the author of the“gospel” on Maryland Evidence, has maintained consistently the “actual knowledge” is an impossible standard under Maryland law. In effect, it would require witnessing the actual abuse before requiring a subject person to make a report of child abuse. Professor McLain taught many of the members of this body the rules of evidence and I give the utmost deference to her interpretations and opinions. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have standards that can be generally described as “reasonable suspicion.” NONE have an “actual knowledge” evidentiary standard. This means that states like Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, are ahead of the State of Maryland when it comes to protecting children. Only Wyoming and Maryland lack the more than generally accepted standard. Only Wyoming and Maryland lack criminal penalties.

The actual knowledge standard is a higher standard than that required for a search warrant and, in fact, a higher standard than that which would be used to convict someone of child abuse. How can this be? It does work, however, if one’s intention is to protect special interests groups and curry favor with certain key legislative officials.

Last fall, this writer, together with about twenty other persons on both sides of this issue, was advised by a key member of this committee that whatever bill language might come about, “actual knowledge” would be out. As Paul Simon said, “All lies in jest.”

Any attorney worthy of the name knows that the actual knowledge standard is a red herring of gigantic proportion. It purpose is only to give lip service to this issue so that one may say “we did something,” when, in fact, it/they/you do nothing.

Second (actually a “tie” for first), is that this bill refuses to acknowledge the historic, longstanding, and pathetic record of the clergy in this area – not only in participating in child abuse but using church practices to cover up rampant child abuse, physical and sexual. Any serious bill addressing the underreporting of child abuse MUST include the clergy and members of all religious orders and sects as required reporters.

Third, the bill does creates another “will do little, if nothing” provision. The bill provides for a very short one-year period for charging the offense. That is the same period for spitting on the sidewalk or failing to obtain a permit. Often, the salient facts are not known within one year of the failure to report, e.g., as abusers often “shop” their victims from doctor to doctor to avoid detection or otherwise conceal abuse. A more reasonable standard is to have the limitations period run the same length of time for an abused person to bring charges (or, at a minimum, file a civil action). The seriousness of the failure to report on a child warrants the same charging period of limitations as felonies, i.e., NONE.

Fourth, the elimination of any provision requiring reporting after an abused child becomes an adult is ludicrous. There is a significant, logical, and compelling need for a required reporter to report even when the patient, etc., is an adult because the abuser may be victimizing persons other than the person undergoing treatment. For example, a twenty year old patient may report that her father abused her up until she reached puberty. That father, though, may be abusing other pre-pubescent children, and not requiring a report would further endanger those children.

We must protect children, not special interest groups. The clergy, educators, and doctors will all tell you that they are doing a great job as they conduct their own investigations. Look only to events in the Catholic Church, Wicomico County Schools, Key School in Annapolis, and elsewhere to see that this is definitely not the case.

I strongly urge this committee to give SB 568 an unfavorable vote or, in the alternative, to amend SB 568 in a manner consistent with the above. SB 568, as presently constituted, makes Maryland a laughing stock.

Thank you.

Respectfully.

Ernest A. Crofoot

EAC Testimony SB0568 Final ... by on Scribd

Netflix "The Keepers" Survivor Teresa Lancaster to MD Delegates: "Should this bill pass, legislators would be putting their stamp of approval on a dangerous excuse for failing to report. They would be undermining current law, which has protected children for 26 years. This would be an inexcusable, backward step."

Testimony in Opposition to SB 568/HB 787, Crimes--Child Abuse and Neglect--Failure to Report

March 27, 2019

My name is Teresa Lancaster. I am an attorney and a survivor who was featured in the Emmy-nominated documentary, The Keepers, currently on Netflix. I am also an activist and advocate for victims of sexual abuse.

I strongly oppose this bill. The proposed "actual knowledge" standard is so high that had it been in place during the Maskell scandal, no one could have been subject to prosecution for failing to report, had they suspected or even known about the terrible crimes that had occurred at Archbishop Keough High School when Maskell was there. Moreover, in accordance with the "actual knowledge" language, they would have been required to have seen for themselves the multiple rapes and the horrendous sexual abuse that took place in his office and failed to notify authorities before any prosecution could even be considered. It is clear in the child abuse literature that sexual abuse is not perpetrated in public. Consequently, I respectfully cannot understand, after all the scandals that have come to light, how supporters of this bill could claim that it would encourage reporting child abuse.

SB 568/HB 787 has been amended to make it worse. All this change would do is to undermine reporting based on suspected child abuse, which is the current standard in civil law. Legislators should ask themselves why no other state has such a standard in its reporting law.

I must emphasize that the part of the bill I find most offensive is Subsection C, because it undercuts an Attorney General opinion, 78 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 189 [Dec.3, 1993]. This opinion finally required that the Archdiocese report to the authorities in my case, as well as the notorious Merzbacher case. Section C is a slap in the face to all the survivors of both of these scandals. Should this bill pass, legislators would be putting their stamp of approval on a dangerous excuse for failing to report. They would be undermining current law, which has protected children for 26 years. This would be an inexcusable, backward step.

Committee members must therefore, for the reasons above, look to their consciences and reject SB568/HB787.

Thank you for considering my views.

Lancaster Testimony (1) by on Scribd

Professor Lynn McLain to MD Legislature: "These bills fall far short of the national standard for criminal penalties for failure to report child abuse." #sexualabuse #failuretoreport @SenMikeMiller

SB 568 RE: FAILURE TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Testimony in Opposition

Respectfully Submitted by Lynn McLain, Professor and Dean Joseph Curtis Faculty Fellow Emerita, University of Baltimore School of Law, March 22, 2019

HONORABLE CHAIRMAN CLIPPINGER, VICE-CHAIR ATTERBEARY, AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

These bills fall far short of the national standard for criminal penalties for failure to report child abuse. None of the 48 states or D.C. has anything coming close to the total lack of remedy these bills offer, especially in sexual abuse cases.

1. Unlike the penalty laws in 48 other states and D.C., both SB 568 (and HB 787, as amended) apply only if the mandatory reporter who failed to report can be proved to have had "actual knowledge of the abuse or neglect."

The courts will look to the "plain meaning" of these words¹ -- which is firsthand, direct knowledge of the facts at issue. In the child abuse and neglect context, this would mean personally witnessing the acts of abuse or neglect as they were being committed, and realizing that it was abuse, as opposed to, for example, "horsing around."

Black's Law Dictionary² defines "actual knowledge" as "Direct and clear knowledge, as distinguished from constructive knowledge (the employer, having witnessed the accident, had actual knowledge of the worker's injury). "³

Black's defines "constructive knowledge," in contrast, as "Knowledge that one using reasonable care or diligence should have, and therefore that is attributed by law to a given person." A mandated Family Law 5-704 reporter is much more likely to have "constructive knowledge "of abuse than "actual knowledge."

Only "constructive knowledge" would result from hearing allegations of abuse or neglect from the child or seeing bruises, vaginal or anal tearing, or other injuries which cause the reporter to suspect abuse. In those situations, the mandated reporter would have a duty to report "suspected abuse" under Family Law 5-704. But that reporter would not have "actual knowledge" of the abuse or neglect, so even an intentional failure to report, as part of an intentional cover-up, could not be charged under these current bills.

These bills would not cover situations such as where persons at the US Olympics Committee or Michigan State University were told of allegations by minor gymnasts that they had been abused by Dr. Larry Nassar, even if they had spoken directly to the gymnasts.⁴

These bills would not even cover anyone in the most extreme example of the Penn State scandal -- the assistant coach who saw Mr. Sandusky in the shower with the young boy said that he was not sure that it was sexual abuse, but he thought it might be. So even he could not have been prosecuted successfully under this Maryland bill, if the jury had reasonable doubt as to whether he really knew it was sexual abuse! Let alone the higher-ups to whom that man reported but who failed to act. They were held criminally liable under Pennsylvania law -- but they couldn't have been charged if these Maryland bills were the governing law.

2. Because these bills do not state otherwise, the statute of limitations under them is one year from the initial failure to report. Most sexual abuse does not come to light until much, much later. Those who intentionally failed to report child sexual abuse and covered it up for over a year would get away with it "scot-free."

These bills create a misdemeanor. Under Courts 5-106(a), the default statute of limitations for all misdemeanors is one year. To give a different statute of limitations, the particular misdemeanor must be either explicitly made "subject to Courts 5-106(b)" or have a separate statute of limitations provided for in a new subsection of Courts 5-106.

3. These bills undermine the current reporting structure established by Family Law 5-704 and 5-705, which have been construed as applying even when the reporter learns of the suspected abuse or neglect when the child has reached adulthood.⁵ Reports to Social Services or law enforcement are still required, so that the State authorities can investigate to determine whether there are other children who may be at risk. ⁶

Instead, these bills choose to leave at risk innumerable other children in an abuser's sphere.

4. Unlike the laws of 35 other states, these bills inexplicably do not cover bishops and other clergy who fail to promptly report suspected abuse or neglect.

For these reasons, I respectfully oppose SB 568 and HB 787 as amended.

Lynn McLain

lmclain@ubalt.edu

410-778-4515

1 Breslin v. Powell, 421 Md. 266, 286-87 (2011) ("In attempting to discern the intent of the Legislature, courts 'look first to the plain language of the statute, giving it its natural and ordinary meaning. ' If the language of thestatute is clear and ambiguous, courts will give effect to the plain meaning of the statute....").

2 10th ed. 2014.

3 In numerous Maryland statutes, too, "actual knowledge" is used to mean direct, firsthand knowledge of the fact at issue, in contrast to lower alternative standards, such as "a reasonable basis for knowledge." Where lesser alternatives are permitted, they are listed with the use of the disjunctive "or." See, e.g., Md. Code, Crim. L. 11-209(a) ("A person may not [do act X]..., if the person knows, or possesses facts under which the person reasonably should know...").

4 See, e.g., Gymnasts Fault Olympic Committee, Wall St. J., A3, col. 1, Feb. 20, 2018.

5 78 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 189 (Dec. 3, 1993).

6 See L. McLain, vol. 6 MARYLAND EVIDENCE: STATE AND FEDERAL sec. 504:2 at nn. 44-48 (3d ed. 2013).

2019 March 22 Lynn McLain by on Scribd

Will Maryland Step Up this Year? "I support, encourage, and beg the Legislature to pass legislation in this area – one with teeth, one with effective protection for child abuse victims, and one that values children victims over the concerns of highly funded special interest groups including, but not limited to, doctors, psychiatrists, teachers, and churches."

Will Maryland step up this year and finally leave Wyoming to stand alone?  

Only 2 states have no penalties for failing to report child sex abuse. Md. is one of them.

Maryland House Bill 1069 could take Maryland off the map of States that refuse to hold 

public school administrators responsible for their failure to report sexual abuse of students.  But will the Maryland legislature make that move and stand up for children?

Or will Maryland and Wyoming continue to be the only two States that refuse to hold

public school administrators accountable for failing to report sexual abuse of students? 

~~~~~~~~

Maryland General Assembly

HB 787 & HB 1069

The Hon. Luke Clippinger, Chair

The Hon. Vanessa E. Atterbeary, Vice-Chair

Judiciary Committee

Re: HB 787 - Crimes - Child Abuse and Neglect - Failure to Report

Re: HB 1069 - Child Abuse and Neglect - Required Reporting

Hearing: February 28, 2019 – 1:00 p.m.

Testimony of Ernest A. Crofoot – In Opposition to Bill HB 787

Testimony of Ernest A. Crofoot – In support of Bill HB 1069

Good afternoon. I am Ernest A. Crofoot. I am an attorney, graduate of the University of
Baltimore School of Law, a Fellow of the Maryland Bar Foundation, member of the Peer Review
Committee of the Attorney Grievance Commission, and an Ethics instructor for the Academy for
Excellence in Local Government. However, my written and oral testimony on this bill are my
own personal assessments and do not reflect the position of any group, organization, board or
commission. I recently began providing assistance on this topic to other long-term and long-
suffering advocates.

Let me say first that I support, encourage, and beg the Legislature to pass legislation in
this area – one with teeth, one with effective protection for child abuse victims, and one that
values children victims over the concerns of highly funded special interest groups including,
but not limited to, doctors, psychiatrists, teachers, and churches.

House Bill 787 is an attempt, although a half-hearted, flawed, and short sighted one, to
create an incentive for the timely and compassionate reporting by statutorily required reporters of
suspected child abuse. Unfortunately, its shortcomings swallow its meager benefits. In contrast,
HB 1069 addresses all of the defects in HB 787 and takes Maryland on the right path to
protecting children. And, after all, isn’t that what we should be considering, rather than to
vulture-like protests of the special interest groups?

First, and most importantly, HB 787 sets an impossible evidentiary standard by, in effect,
requiring that one must have “actual knowledge” before one is required to report child abuse. In
other submitted testimony, you will see that none other than Professor Emerita Lynn McLain,
University of Baltimore School of Law, the author of the “gospel” on Maryland Evidence, has
maintained consistently that the “actual knowledge” standard is an impossible standard under
Maryland law. In effect, it would require witnessing the actual abuse before requiring a subject
person to make a report of child abuse. Professor McLain taught many of the members of this
body the rules of evidence and I give the utmost deference to her interpretations and opinions.
Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have standards that can be generally described as
“reasonable suspicion.” NONE have an “actual knowledge” evidentiary standard. In effect, the
bill requires a standard for the required reporting of suspected child abuse that is higher than
the standard juries are required to use in capital murder cases. This means that states like
Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, are ahead of the State of Maryland when it comes to
protecting children. Only Wyoming and Maryland lack the more than generally accepted
standard. Only Wyoming and Maryland lack criminal penalties.

In contrast, HB 1069 sets a reasonableness standard, one that is used throughout the
United States and DC (except for Maryland and Wyoming). The standard for guilt under HB
1069 does not change. As a criminal misdemeanor, the criminal standard of guilt would still apply.

Second (actually a “tie” for first), is that HB 787 refuses to acknowledge the historic,
longstanding, and pathetic record of the clergy in this area – not only in participating in child
abuse but using church practices to cover up rampant child abuse, physical and sexual. Any
serious bill addressing the underreporting of child abuse MUST include the clergy and members
of all religious orders and sects as required reporters. Under HB 787 it is “business as usual” for
the clergy. HB 1069, addresses this issue, and brings Maryland in line with a majority of the
48 states and DC.

Third, the bill does not create a meaningful statute of limitations for charging the offense.
One year is totally insufficient and, in effect, swallows the obligation to report. Often, the salient
facts are not known or reported by others within one year of the failure to report (the applicable
limitations period under the bill as drafted); e.g., abusers often “shop” their victims from doctor
to doctor to avoid detection or otherwise conceal abuse. HB 1069 does contain a provision
specifying by reference no limitations period, the same as for felonies. This is also the
standard proposed for civil damages claims in sexual abuses cases in HB 687, also being heard
today, which bill I wholeheartedly support.

Fourth, the seven year cap on the duty to report measured from the date the victim turns
eighteen (treasured by the medical community and the clergy) eliminates the need to report
where the abuser may be victimizing persons other than the person undergoing treatment of the
subject of the knowledge of the otherwise required reporter. For example, a twenty-five year old
patient may report that her father abused her up until she reached puberty. That father, though,
may be abusing other pre-pubescent children, and not requiring a report would further endanger
those children. HB 1069 addresses this matter and continues the duty to report as noted above.
HB 1069 addresses all of these issues in a concise, fair, and beneficial manner. HB 1069
will protect children, not special interest groups. The clergy, educators, and doctors will all tell
you that they are doing a great job as they conduct their own investigations. Look only to events
in the Catholic Church, Wicomico County Schools, Key School in Annapolis, and elsewhere to
see that this is definitely not the case.

I strongly urge this committee to give HB 787 an unfavorable vote and to vote a favorable report on HB 1069.

Thank you.

Respectfully.
s/Ernest A. Crofoot

Jennifer Alvaro, "THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW"

Child sexual abuse is an issue which affect us all.  It is present in every neighborhood, in every socioeconomic group, every racial group, every ethnicity, every religion, from the least to the most highly educated among us.  It affects the famous as well as the forgotten. It can happen to infants as well as teens.    Experts in the field have found anywhere from 1/3 of girls & 1/6 of boys to 1/10 of all children will experience child sexual abuse sometime before they turn 18.   

Most children never report being abused.   
Most people who abuse are never caught.   
90% of victims are abused by someone they know, like, love or live with.

We can, as a society, prevent most childhood sexual abuse.  
For the times we cannot prevent abuse, we can help to end it sooner.  
 Please commit to helping end child abuse.
The first step is by raising awareness and becoming educated about the issue. 

 https://www.jenniferalvaro.com/