This is an annotated letter from Nancy Rollins, director of DCYF, with my annotations in italics.

February 5, 2002

Ms. D.
PO Box xxx
[Town], NH 034xx

Dear Ms. D:

I am responding to your letter that I received on January 23, 2002. In your letter you state that Child Protective Social Worker Wendy Keith, who works in the Keene District Office, is harassing you. You request that you would like Wendy to "leave me alone and remove her frivolous and manipulated report on my daughter who would otherwise enter her adult life with a child abuse record."

I also received the copy of the letter that you sent to Wendy Keith at the Keene District Office that states that you "forbid your department to speak to any of my children at any time, with the exception of STRICT compliance with RSA 169-C:38, IV."

Ms. D., the Division for Children, Youth and Families is mandated by law to follow through with an assessment whenever credible allegations of abuse/neglect are reported. This assessment includes interviewing all the children in the family. Allegations regarding your children were reviewed by the DCYF intake unit and were then sent to the Keene District Office for an assessment to be completed.

Ms. Rollins, the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to forbid searches without probable cause that a CRIME has been committed. The allegations in this case were that one child assaulted another, and that the mother failed to protect the younger child. The NH General Court has determined that when a CHILD perpetrated what would otherwise be a crime against someone, that it is to be handled as a CIVIL, NON-CRIMINAL matter. RSA 169-B, and RSA 169-D. That was the choice the legislature, and so under absolutely NO circumstances could a judge legally authorize a warrant for ANY reason WHATSOEVER since failure to protect a child from another child's assault is neglect, and there is no criminal neglect statute in New Hampshire. I just thought I'd set the record straight.

The Program Manager in Keene, Carolyn DeBell, has reviewed the assessment. Ms. DeBell informs me that Ms. Keith had tried several times to set up dates with you to speak on two issues. The first issue being that the Hillsboro Probate Court had ordered DCYF to do a home study in order to assess the appropriateness of your home for your daughter, [Y].

An entirely separate issue. Here, the mother refuses to take the child back into her home because she reasonably believes that the child is a threat to her other children. So, she refused to cooperate with the social study. She knows that she can be charged with neglect for failure to take the child back. A little problem of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't, perhaps?"

Despite several attempts via phone and mail, you did not meet with Ms. Keith.

Another problem. What happened to the First Amendment, and Article 22 of the NH Constitution? This woman CANNOT be forced to speak with DCYF if she doesn't want to.

The second issue is the assessment of the allegations that the Division for Children, Youth and Families received on 10-22-01. It is my understanding, from Ms. DeBell, that Ms. Keith spoke to you on 10-14-01 and requested to arrange a meeting time to discuss the home study and interview the children in regards to the assessment of 10-22-01.

If so, Ms. Keith (who called in the report herself, and then was somehow assigned to investigate her own report) had remarkable foresight to realize that there would be a report of abuse on 10/22/01 as early as 10/14/01.

You agreed to meet with Ms. Keith at your home on 10-25-01 in [Town]. On 10-25-01, Ms. Keith went to your home and you informed her that you would only let the children be interviewed on videotape; therefore Ms. Keith did not speak to the children. Ms. Keith tried to call you on 10-26-01 and you did not speak to her. Ms Keith sent you a letter requesting that the family come to the District Office on 11-14-01 for interviews and that failure to appear would result in seeing the children in a school setting.

Note: RSA 169-C:38, gives the social worker the authority to enter any PUBLIC PLACE to interview a child suspected of being abused or neglected in furtherance of the investigation. Ms. D's children were in private school, and Ms. Keith knew that, as she did not try to enter the school to interview them. She DID enter the public school to interview the alleged child perpetrator, in violation of the law.

Ms. Rollins, DCYF's obligation to investigate child abuse complaints places NO corresponding duty on the part of any citizen to cooperate with the investigation, in particular for a ridiculous investigation called in by a social worker to central intake herself. Please refer to your U.S. and NH Constitutions. Fifth Amendment, Article 19 and Article 22. Surely you don't believe that DCYF is EXEMPT From constitutional protections, DO YOU?

You and the family did not appear on that date. Ms. Keith obtained permission from your daughter's biological father, [Z], to interview [the alleged perpetrator] at school. [The alleged perpetrator] was interviewed on 12-4-01 and the interview was audio taped.

He later told the mother that the social worker lied to him about the necessity of interviewing the child.

Since this time Ms. Keith has been denied by you permission to interview the other children in the household. And your point is?.......

Ms. D., it is necessary to interview the other children in the household in regards to the allegations. Ms. Keith and her supervisors are following the law and DCYF policy in attempting to interview the children. It appears from your letters that you would accept the interviews if they were videotaped. Ms. DeBell has informed me that she has spoken with the Supervisor, Colleen Duquette. A mutual time can be arranged for the children to be interviewed with the use of videotape. This can be done at the Keene District office or a mutually agreed upon place. Please contact Colleen Duquette, Supervisor, at 357-3510 ext. 723 by February 12, 2002 to let her know of a mutually convenient time and place.

Note, the mother still did not cooperate, so the social worker went to the court, Judge Runyon in Jaffrey-Peterborough District Court, who issued the warrant based on the mother's non-cooperation with the investigation. Although the statute itself is unconstitutional, because it authorizes warrants without evidence of a crime, the judge did not follow even the low standards of RSA 169-C:34, which require evidence that a child's "immediate safety or well-being of a child may be endangered."

Sincerely,

Nancy L. Rollins
Director

Don't you feel comfortable that your rights will be protected by the courts when the Director of DCYF encourages the workers to violate the constitutions and the law and the judges cooperate?

Contact Paula Werme, Esq. or return to Law Practice home page.

Last updated 2002 March 17.