(CN) — In one case, a licensed nurse and her newborn child were administered separate drug screens just after she had given birth in Baldwin County in November 2021. Both tested positive for THC and as a result, hospital employees – who are also mandatory reporters – notified the Alabama Department of Human Resources of the mother’s drug use and a perceived future potential for child abuse.
During the DHR’s subsequent investigation, the mother acknowledged she used Delta 8 THC and CBD products to combat nausea during her pregnancy. Although Delta 8 is sold legally in Alabama, the mother was unaware it would reflect positively on a test for marijuana, which the state still classifies as an illegal Schedule I drug, or that it would prompt DHR’s intervention.
Although the agency agreed to release the child into the mother’s care, the mother’s name was nevertheless added to a confidential database known as the Central Registry, where it was also noted she had been “indicated” for child abuse and/or neglect.
In another case, a grandmother who was employed as a day care worker in Montgomery County between 2017 and 2021 was suddenly subjected to a background check after the day care facility applied for federal funding. The review uncovered a 1993 criminal conviction for third-degree assault. The woman, who was 19 years old at the time of the incident, admitted she slapped her sister’s 18-year-old boyfriend “because of his treatment of her sister.”
Unbeknownst to the woman, the state retroactively defined her as an “adult convicted of a crime against a child,” even though they were less than a year apart in age. Correspondingly, the DHR added her name to the Central Registry and after the background check — 28 years later — she was terminated by her employer.
As of Dec. 15, Alabama’s Central Registry contains the names of 312,862 persons with “indicated dispositions” for child abuse or neglect, a number representing nearly 8% of all adults in the state or 6.1% percent of the total population.
With a simple inquiry, registered users of the database – including employers, law enforcement agencies, courts and nonprofit or religious organizations with access to children – can access sensitive investigative details including allegations, reports, assessments and dispositions involving subjects who may not have had an opportunity to defend themselves.
Although the state statute establishing the database provides recourse for some, attorney James V. “Bubba” Green of Alabaster said others are left without due process and the effects on their personal and professional lives can be “devastating.” Green is currently representing at least two clients in related cases against DHR in state and federal courts.
“The problem I see as a lawyer is that the decision to make an indicated disposition which puts someone on the registry lies with the DHS or social worker who investigates the report of child abuse or neglect,” Green said. “If you stop there, DHR is the judge, jury and executioner. There’s no authority, there’s no balancing, there’s no method by which you can effectively attack the opinion of a government agent.”
In a federal lawsuit filed in September, one of Green’s clients argued she has been “stigmatized, slandered and defamed” as a result of her listing on the registry, and her rights and abilities to participate in her children’s education and extracurricular activities have been distinctly altered.
Green acknowledged the statute allows accused individuals a small window to contest the charges via an “administrative record review” but said unless similar lawsuits are filed, most names will likely remain on the registry. Green also called the statute “strangely written,” in that limited due process is only provided for people who work with or are seeking to work with children. He added those who have grounds to fight the charges often don’t have the means to hire an attorney to represent them.
Follow @gabetynes
