Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cps Records Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would limit public disclosure of CPS investigation records to substantiated findings, sponsor says
Summary
Sen. Dennis Lentz presented SB 256 to limit disclosure of child-abuse investigation information to substantiated reports; proponents said narrower disclosure would prevent unfounded allegations from "clinging" to people, while opponents and informational witnesses discussed discovery rules and system concerns.
Sen. Dennis Lentz introduced Senate Bill 256 to revise laws on access to child-abuse and neglect investigation records, proposing that disclosure to licensing agencies or others be limited to investigations with substantiated findings.
Lentz told the committee that CPS records "cling" to people long after investigations and that limiting disclosure to substantiated reports would prevent unproven allegations from affecting employment and licensing. He described the current array of case determinations—"substantiated," "unsubstantiated," "founded" and "unfounded"—as messy in practice and argued that using only "substantiated" in disclosure rules would be clearer.
Kyla Hailstone, testifying for the Montana Family Court Awareness Project, gave examples of how lack of access to CPS records can leave parents without evidence in family-court custody fights, and argued that discovery rules should ensure relevant CPS materials are available in civil matters about a child's best interests. "This leaves many families at a substantial disadvantage," Hailstone said.
Tracy Moseman, administrator for the Early Childhood and Family Support Division, appeared as an informational witness and told the committee that the portions of the bill that touch on discovery are intended as a restatement of existing discovery rules rather than a substantive change.
Lentz closed by saying the bill addresses a long-standing problem for people who were investigated but not substantiated and noted that an amendment requested by the department was adopted earlier in the process.
No committee vote was taken during the hearing.
