Attorney Kevin Seaver appealed a case with four abuse/neglect allegations against a veteran special education teacher.
THE BACKGROUND
Our client has over 20 years of experience teaching children with special needs and learning disabilities. Their extensive background gives unique insights into DCF investigations, especially involving special needs children. Their expertise is invaluable for parents navigating complex situations, particularly in understanding parents’ rights against DCF.
Understanding this is crucial for fair treatment of children and families in legal and social services. They often worked with students on the autism spectrum who were non-verbal. They had vast experience teaching children how to develop effective communication skills. They had no prior Department of Children and Families allegations or internal school disciplinary actions.
In fact, our client had only ever received glowing reviews from teachers and on her internal performance reviews. Then, in a single season, allegedly everything changed. The new TA reported severe teacher abuse, including insults, supply throwing, and physical attacks on students. Despite allegedly seeing this conduct over the course of several months, the TA, who is a mandated reporter, did nothing. There were no other witnesses, no documentation, no video footage, and our client had no prior discipline. Our client was fired immediately once the allegations were made months later.
The Department supported the allegations without speaking to any other firsthand witnesses. Instead, the investigator contacted the 3–4-year-old children and their parents, who only heard of the allegations from the school. Someone presented the allegations as facts to the parents, causing them to blame the teacher when their child cried. Meanwhile, the TA took over teaching the classroom. This case study illustrates the telephone effect’s impact on child abuse investigations by the Department of Children and Families.
THE INVESTIGATION
The primary struggle of this investigation was parsing out who was a primary source of reliable information. The investigator assigned to the case had to look into many allegations, but it wasn’t always clear who made the allegations. Once the parents learned about what allegedly happened, it quickly spread. It’s crucial for investigators to distinguish witnesses who saw events firsthand from those who heard about them from others.
Needless to say, this investigator did not do such. Can you guess who the investigator viewed as more reliable than our client? One extreme example involved a law firm intake person who received a call from the ex-partner of a parent at the school.” (5% passive voice) Another example is the 6-year-old sibling of one of the non-verbal children who had apparently spoken at length with the 3-year-old about the teacher.
Another example was a parent who was angry at our client for suggesting that their child have an IEP evaluation. Unfortunately, the Department used these comments and others from people without firsthand knowledge to support the allegations against our client. Once this happens, it can be extremely difficult to overturn these allegations.
THE APPEAL
An analogy illustrates that asking a crowded room what they heard doesn’t confirm the story’s content. It merely proves that everyone heard the same story. The Department employs a lax “reasonable cause to believe” standard, requiring credible evidence of alleged abuse/neglect. This is why having an attorney during the investigation is so important.
An attorney ensures Department gets relevant evidence without undue weight to irrelevant information. not pertinent to their investigation. However, once the investigation is before the fair hearing unit, we need to prove with a “preponderance of the evidence” that the investigation decision did not meet the “reasonable cause to believe” standard.
Does this sound fair or unfair to you? On the one hand, the mandated reporter was unable to provide any definitive dates, times, and locations for the alleged neglect/abuse. The school had never filed any internal disciplinary complaints against our client. Furthermore, the alleged neglect/abuse was not witnessed by any other individuals, and none of the alleged incidents were documented.
On the other hand, First-hand sources who have worked with our client for decades not only state that they never had any concerns regarding their teaching but also in the raising of their own children. Mandated reporters and professionals alike have trusted our clients with their children without hesitation.
They confirm that our client is a diligent and professional teacher whom their peers look up to and seek out for support. Our client has dedicated their life and much of their own personal resources to the support and development of their students. Kevin Patrick Seaver is a Boston Defense lawyer representing parents who have been accused of allegations by the Government since 1991 in Massachusetts. His expertise includes navigating complex cases involving parents’ rights against DCF and guiding clients through the intricacies of the DCF investigation process.
DISCLAIMER
You find yourself in this situation, it’s advisable to seek legal representation from a qualified attorney, like those at the Law Office of Kevin Seaver, who can advocate for your rights and guide you through the complex process of a DCF investigation.
Remember that the ultimate goal of DCF is to ensure the safety and well-being of children while supporting families in crisis.
Please note that this article does not create an Attorney-Client relationship between our law firm and the reader and is provided for informational purposes only. Information in this article does not apply to all readers.
Readers should not rely on this information as legal advice and should seek specific counsel from the attorney based on personal circumstances. Thank you.
Kevin Patrick Seaver is a Massachusetts DCF Defense Lawyer who represents parents against false child abuse allegations.
Massachusetts DCF Defense Lawyer Kevin Seaver has been successfully fighting false child abuse allegations since 1991.