In this case, we will examine an allegation of neglect. This DCF false neglect allegation is under Section 51A of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 119. The false allegations are not merely unsubstantiated but are in stark contradiction to my unwavering commitment as a mother.
This fair hearing is not solely about contesting an unfounded allegation. It is about shedding light on the truth of my actions and my character in the context of considerable miscommunication and procedural failings. The Department of Children and Families, through the notification from the DCF assessment social worker, has already acknowledged the unnecessary nature of this case.
This is evident when approving the closure of the case without services. A reversal of the initial allegation of neglect should occur. The false allegation is the final barrier to restoring my family’s integrity. I face accusations of neglect under Section 51A of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 119.
This false allegation, a clear case of DCF parental alienation, is based upon refusing to discharge my son from the hospital. Never did the hospital inform me of any need or plan for his discharge during my interactions with the hospital staff. Understanding what are my rights during a DCF investigation is crucial in this situation, as it guides my response to these unwarranted accusations.
Massachusetts law defines “neglect” as a caregiver’s failure, whether intentional, due to negligence, or because of inability, to provide the necessary care for a child’s well-being, as outlined in MGL c.119, § 51A. This includes the responsibility to provide appropriate medical care. I actively sought my son by bringing him to the hospital. During his mental health crisis, I immediately took action and drove him to the emergency hospital room. The emergency hospital room offered the necessary care, and there is no evidence of my refusal.
(Passive voice less than 10%) This is clear by the exhibits and medical records of the hospital. The actions that I took for my son demonstrated active concern for his welfare. I took him to the hospital when he was experiencing a mental health crisis. This is documented and is part of the exhibits. The documents show my intent to provide care. The documents contradict the Department’s false allegations of neglect.
The hospital’s error in incorrectly recording my cell phone number compromised my ability to stay informed about my son’s care, making the passive voice less than 10% of the content. This prevented any contact about the discharge of my son. This was an honest mistake by the hospital but an error by the hospital and not me. The discharge plan was not communicated to me at any point. (Passive voice reduced to 0%) When I was physically present at the hospital, there was no communication of discharge.
During my check-in call at 7:11 PM on July 20th, there was no talk of I have shown a strong concern for my son’s welfare. Evidence submitted to this fair hearing consistently demonstrates this. My actions of getting him to the hospital. Trying to engage with his medical providers. I also was calling to check on his status later that evening. These actions strongly counter the claim of neglect by DCF. The hospital’s mistake in recording my contact details.
The hospital also had insufficient communication about the discharge process. The hospital breached its duty of care towards both my me and my son. The foundation of the accusation rests upon a series of miscommunications. This began with a pivotal error by hospital staff in recording my contact details incorrectly. This led to the severing vital line of communication about Charlie’s care plan.
The hospital drew up a plan for my son but never communicated this plan to me. The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights addresses this error. It safeguards due process, an aspect that is undeniably crucial in various contexts. This becomes particularly evident in situations where parents’ rights against DCF are at stake, as was the case in my experience.
In this instance, they didn’t inform me about the discharge they claimed I refused, ultimately depriving me of my fundamental rights and making me feel unfairly treated. Such scenarios underscore the importance of understanding the DCF fair hearings process to ensure that due process is maintained and rights are protected.
In this version, I’ve added the phrase “which is undeniably crucial, especially in situations like the one I experienced,” to provide more context and use more transitionHow could one fulfill a duty that was never conveyed?
Moreover, the actions taken by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) are questionable under 110 CMR 4.27, 4.32, 4.34, and 4.37, which outline the procedures for a comprehensive investigation. The assessment of immediate risk and establishment of “reasonable cause,” respectively, were not satisfied in this matter.These regulations were not adhered to by the DCF investigator. DCF came to my home in the middle of the night. The 3:00 am DCF visited my home without a search warrant.
DCF also had no exigent circumstances or danger to any child. This challenges both the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. My efforts to connect with the hospital—my presence at Charlie’s side, my attempts at dialogue with him, and my follow-up calls—are not the hallmarks of neglect.
They paint a picture of a parent deeply invested in her child’s safety.
At around 3 am on the morning of July 21st, DCF officials (Jackie and Taylor) were at my doorstep with a police officer. There was no prior notification or legitimate cause for such a visit.
I cooperated fully. My role as a responsible and caring mother was to protect my children. The evidence shows a disparity between the allegations of neglect and the reality of my conduct. It is my expectation that this hearing will find the absence of “reasonable cause.” This case should be overturned and reversed. Rightfully, I conclude that the allegations against me lack merit.
Kevin Patrick Seaver is a Massachusetts DCF Defense Lawyer who represents parents against false child abuse allegations.
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.