Opinion
NA XXXXX/13
07-21-2014
In the Matters of W. and V. Children Under Eighteen Years of Age Alleged to be Abused by E.S., Respondent.
Michael Cardozo (Zachary W. Carter), Corporation Counsel of the City of New York by Alan W. Sputz, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, Administration for Children's Services, Bronx, New York (Tiffany Wichman, Esq., of counsel) for Petitioner ACS, 900 Sheridan Avenue, 6th Floor, Bronx, New York 10451 The Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Practice, Bronx Office (Michelle L. Domena, Esq., of counsel ) Attorney for the Children W. and V., 900 Sheridan Avenue, 6th Floor, Bronx, New York 10451 The Bronx Defenders - Family Defense Practice (Patrick Clark, Esq., Milinda Kakani, Esq., Jessica Horan Block, Esq., of counsel) for Respondent E. S., 360 East Street, Bronx, New York 10451
Michael Cardozo (Zachary W. Carter), Corporation Counsel of the City of New York by Alan W. Sputz, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, Administration for Children's Services, Bronx, New York (Tiffany Wichman, Esq., of counsel) for Petitioner ACS, 900 Sheridan Avenue, 6th Floor, Bronx, New York 10451 The Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Practice, Bronx Office (Michelle L. Domena, Esq., of counsel ) Attorney for the Children W. and V., 900 Sheridan Avenue, 6th Floor, Bronx, New York 10451 The Bronx Defenders - Family Defense Practice (Patrick Clark, Esq., Milinda Kakani, Esq., Jessica Horan Block, Esq., of counsel) for Respondent E. S., 360 East Street, Bronx, New York 10451 Carol R. Sherman, J.
This Qualified Protective Order modifies and supersedes the Protective Order issued in this matter on June 24, 2014, and it is hereby:
ORDERED that pursuant to provisions of the Family Court Act, Social Services Law, federal privacy law requirements of HIPAA as to hospital records and confidentiality requirements that apply to ACS records for the child W., the following records are not to be re- disclosed to any persons, other than those directly involved in the representation of the parties and in trial preparation in this proceeding:
ú The hospital records for the child W. including the report from the Child Advocacy Center
ú ACS records
ú Validator's Report as to the alleged child sexual abuse and the documentation related to it
úúSchool records related to W., and
úúAny copies of these documents received during the discovery process for use in this article 10 proceeding by counsel and respective parties.
ORDERED that if any counsel wishes to provide copies of any of these documents to an expert retained by him/her to assist in trial preparation for the Family Court proceeding only, counsel may do so but that expert may not make additional copies of these documents nor re-disclose nor distribute them to any persons other than those directly involved in this proceeding.
BASES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE
QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER OF JULY 21, 2014
On October 21, 2013, the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) filed a child abuse petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012 (e) alleging that Respondent E. S. sexually abused the subject child W. and derivatively abused her half-sibling V. . Respondent S. is the father of the child V. but he is not the legal or biological father of the child W. and is charged as a Person Legally Responsible as to her (see Family Court Act § 1012 [g]). At this pre-fact-finding stage of the proceeding, ACS has provided all counsel with confidential records and documents as part of discovery and pursuant to judicial subpoenas issued by this court. The relevant records and documents are as follows:
ú Oral Report Transmittal of Suspected Child Abuse and Maltreatment and records prepared by ACS Child Protective Specialists relating to the report including case note entries detailing the investigation of the suspected sexual abuse of the child W. and the alleged derivative abuse of her half-sister V., as well as assessments and determinations made, and services offered, arranged for and provided by ACS to the child W. and the family.
úúValidator's Report prepared by Eileen Treacy, Ph.D., at the request of ACS to determine if ACS would offer expert testimony by Dr. Treacy at the fact-finding hearing
as to the alleged sexual abuse of the child W. by Respondent S.. The Validator's Report contains the results of the validation interview Dr. Treacy conducted with W., and the videotape and notes from that interview.
úúJacobi Medical Center's Child Advocacy Center records as to the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of the child W. and ongoing specialized mental health services provided to her by Center staff.
úúThe subject children's education records, including the Individualized Educational Services Plan of the child W., a special education record.
Section 1038 (a) of the Family Court Act authorizes broad disclosure of privileged and confidential records and documents in an article 10 child abuse and neglect proceeding as follows:
"(a) Each hospital and any other public or private agency having custody of any records, photographs or other evidence relating to the abuse or neglect, upon the subpoena of the court, the corporation counsel, county attorney, district attorney, counsel for the child, or one of the parties to the proceeding, shall be required to send such records, photographs or evidence to the court for use in any proceeding relating to abuse or neglect under this article. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, service of any such subpoena upon a hospital may be made by certified mail return receipt requested, to the director of the hospital. The court shall establish procedures for the receipt and safeguarding of such records."The purpose of these broad disclosure provisions is to ensure that the family court in a child abuse and neglect proceeding has a comprehensive and complete record to guard against erroneous findings and to fulfill the purpose and mandate of the court to "help protect children from injury or mistreatment and to help safeguard their physical, mental, and emotional well-being. It is designed to provide a due process of law for determining when the state, through its family court, may intervene against the wishes of a parent on behalf of a child so that his needs are properly met" (Family Court Act §§ 1011, 1038; Matter of Tricia K., 160 Misc 2d 935, 936 [Fam Ct, Kings County 1994]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs., 170 Misc 2d 126, 129 [Fam Ct, Kings County 1996]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]).
Federal and state laws regulate access to and disclosure of the pretrial discovery records and documents submitted in this article 10 proceeding to protect an individual's privacy interests and deter improper dissemination of "individually identifiable information" contained in the records and documents. To ensure compliance with these statutes and corresponding regulations and safeguard these records and documents, which were obtained by judicial subpoena expressly for use in this article 10 proceeding, from improper dissemination, the court issues this Qualified Protective Order (see Family Court Act § 1038 [a]). As discussed below, relevant statutes and regulations protecting the privacy interests of persons in these records and documents do not authorize this court or counsel or the parties to re-disclose these pre-trial discovery records, obtained exclusively for use in this proceeding, to any persons other than those directly involved in the representation of the parties and in trial preparation in this proceeding, absent specific statutory or regulatory authority authorizing such disclosure.
Access to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect
and Related Child Protective Records
In the child protective investigation that preceded this article 10 proceeding, ACS conducted face-to-face interviews with Respondent S., Non-Respondent Mother R. and the subject children, obtained information from the reporting source and other agencies and service providers, assessed the current safety and the risk of future abuse and maltreatment to the children, determined the nature, extent and cause of any condition enumerated in the report, and provided and arranged for services for the children and parents (see Social Services Law § 423; 18 NYCRR 432.2). Federal law requires that reports of child abuse and neglect and other information related to reports shall be kept confidential, except in certain limited circumstances, as a condition of receipt of federal grants to states for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs (see Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 USC§ 5106a [b] [2] [B] [viii]-[x]).
In New York State, Social Service Law § 422 (4) (A) provides that "[r]eports made pursuant to this title, as well as any other information obtained, reports written or photographs taken concerning such reports in the possession of the office or local departments shall be confidential and shall only be made available to" persons or entities enumerated in the statute. Other provisions of the Social Services Law authorize or limit disclosure of report information as follows: section 422 (5), access to unfounded reports; section 422 (7), prohibitions as to the disclosure of data to the subject of the report that would identify the person who made the report or who cooperated in a subsequent investigation or identify the agency or entity with which the person is associated or employed which the commissioner "reasonably finds will be detrimental to the safety or interests of such persons"; section 422-a, disclosure of report information by the state commissioner or city or county commissioner; section 424 (4), telephone notice to and immediate forwarding of reports which involve the death of a child to the district attorney; section 424 (5), disclosure of reports to an appropriate duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to children or other child protective agency; section 424 (5-a) disclosure of reports involving suspected physical injury or sexual abuse or death of a child to local law enforcement for investigation jointly by child protective services and local law enforcement or multidisciplinary team; section 427-a (5) (d), access to reports assigned under the family assessment and services track. A willful disclosure of child protective investigative information that is not expressly authorized by statute is a criminal offense, "[a]ny person who willfully permits and any person who encourages the release of any data and information contained in the central register to persons or agencies not permitted by this title shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor" (Social Services Law § 422 [12]).
Among those enumerated in Social Services Law § 422 (4) (A) to whom report information may be made available, relevant to this proceeding, are the following persons and entities:
(d) any person who is the subject of the report, or other persons named in the report;
(e) a court, upon a finding that the information in the record is necessary for the determination of an issue before the court;
(f) a grand jury, upon a finding that the information in the record is necessary for the determination of charges before the grand jury;
(l) a district attorney, an assistant district attorney, investigator employed by the district attorney, an officer of the State Police and certain other law enforcement officers when such information is necessary to conduct a criminal investigation or prosecution of a person;
(t) An attorney appointed to represent the child.
Respondent S. is authorized to have access to report information as the subject of a report and as a party before this court in which child protective information is necessary to make a determination and in which Petitioner ACS has the duty to disclose child protective records relevant to this proceeding (Social Services Law § 422 [4] [A] [d], [e]; Family Court Act § 1038 [ b]). Respondent's defense counsel in the pending concurrent criminal proceeding is not included among the persons enumerated in statute to whom access to and disclosure of child protective report information is authorized. Moreover, the statute sets forth no exception that would permit Respondent S. to re-disclose information he has received as a subject of the report and as a party in this proceeding to any other person, including his criminal defense attorney. "The Legislature has specifically directed, however, that records of child-abuse investigations are to be kept strictly confidential except as expressly permitted by statute . . . Though we regret the application of this rule in the case before us, we may not rewrite the statute to suit our own policy preferences" (Lamot v City of New York, 297 AD2d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2002] finding that Social Services Law § 422 [4] [A] did not contain an exception permitting disclosure of child protective investigation records as to the siblings of the plaintiff child to the child for her use in a negligence action against the City of New York in which the child, who resided with her siblings, charged that the City had failed to remove her from the care of her mother who continued to abuse her for several years following the City's involvement, and noting that this was an "arguably harsh result" but "relief from the existing law must come from the Legislature and we recommend that body consider a measure to serve that end"; see also Matter of Sarah FF, 18 AD3d 1072, 1074 [3d Dept 2005] overturning the family court's determination to release child protective information to a Court Appointed Special Advocate volunteer, a person not included among those enumerated in Social Services Law § 422 [4] [A], holding that the statute permits the family court access to child protective information for its own use in making a determination before it but "[n]othing in this statute permits a court to expand the carefully crafted statutory and exclusive list of those to whom access is authorized"). Accordingly, Social Services Law does not contain an exception that would permit disclosure of confidential child protective investigation records to Respondent's criminal defense counsel nor does it authorize Respondent to re-disclose this information to his criminal defense counsel.
Access to Validator's Report Prepared at the Request of Petitioner ACS
in Relation to Testimony by an Expert Witness
ACS referred the child W. for a validation interview by Eileen Treacy, Ph.D., to determine if it would offer expert testimony by Dr. Treacy at the fact-finding hearing as to the alleged sexual abuse of the child pursuant to the special authority granted in Family Court Act§ 1038 (c). The court also directed that arrangements be made for the videotaping of Dr. Treacy's interview of the child. In June 2014, as part of pre-trial disclosure, Petitioner ACS provided all counsel in this proceeding with the Validator's Report prepared by Dr. Treacy. The ACS Attorney deposited the original videotape recording of the validation interview with the Clerk of the Court to store in a secure place with access limited to authorized court personnel. The ACS Attorney retained a duplicate copy of the videotape and made that copy available to Respondent S.'s counsel in this child protective proceeding and the attorney for the children pursuant to the Uniform Rules for Family Court, 22 NYCRR § 205.86 (c) (2), which permit the "attorney for a party, or the party, if not represented by counsel, to borrow the duplicate video recording for a reasonable time period so that it may be viewed, provided the person to whom it is loaned first certifies, by affidavit filed with the court that he or she will comply with this subdivision." The Rules of the Family Court provide further:
"(3) A person borrowing the duplicate video recording as provided in paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall not lend it or otherwise surrender custody thereof to any person other than the custodian, and upon returning such video recording to the custodian, such person shall certify, by affidavit filed with the court that he or she has complied with the provisions of this subdivision.This court finds that the Validator's Report and videotape of the validation interview were created by an anticipated expert witness as part of Petitioner ACS's trial preparation in this civil proceeding pursuant to special authority granted in Family Court Act § 1038 (c) (see also CPLR 3101 [d]). The Rules of the Family Court strictly limit access to the viewing of the videotape recording of the validation interview to a party, his or her counsel, or prospective expert witnesses in this article 10 proceeding. This court finds no statutory or regulatory authority to support any contention by Respondent S. that the Validator's Report and videotape recording of the validation interview can be disclosed to his criminal defense counsel for use in the concurrent criminal proceeding. Access to St. Barnabas and Montefiore Medical Center's Diagnostic,
(4) Subject to court order otherwise, the duplicate video recording may not be viewed by any person other than a party or his or her counsel or prospective expert witnesses. No copy of the duplicate video recording may be made.
(d) Failure to comply with the provisions of this rule shall be punishable by contempt of court" (Uniform Rules for Fam Ct [22 NYCRR] § 205.86 [c] [3]-[4], [d]).
Clinical and Treatment Records
Pursuant to a judicial subpoena of this court, St. Barnabas and Montefiore Medical Center has submitted for use in this proceeding the diagnostic, clinical and treatment records it has prepared and maintained as to the child W. and related records of its child advocacy center, the Family Advocacy Program, which assisted in the investigation of the alleged sexual abuse of the child W. by Respondent S. and which has provided and continues to provide specialized mental health services to the child ( see Family Court Act § 1038 [a]).
Records used or developed by a child advocacy center in providing services authorized by statute are confidential (see Social Services Law § 423-a [5] [a]). Relevant to this matter, disclosure of "[t]he files, reports, records, communications, working papers or videotaped interviews used or developed in providing services under this section" may be made to members of a multidisciplinary investigative team for the purpose of investigation of a particular case (id.). Further, "[a]ny public or private department, agency or organization may share with a child advocacy center information that is made confidential by law when it is needed to provide or secure services pursuant to this section. Confidential information shared with or provided to a center remains the property of the providing organization" (Social Services Law § 423-a [5] [b]).
Access to and disclosure of the diagnostic, clinical and treatment records of the child W. submitted by Jacobi Medical Center are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Pub L 104-191, 110 US Stat 1936 (104th Cong, 2d Sess, Aug. 21, 1996) (codified in titles 18, 26, 29 and 42 of the United States Code), and regulation, the Privacy Rule, 45 CFR parts 160, 164. HIPAA privacy regulations protect all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a "covered entity," such as Jacobi Medical Center, a health care provider that electronically transmits health information in connection with certain transactions such as claims, benefit eligibility inquires or referral authorization requests. HIPAA privacy regulations define "health information" as follows:
"any information, including genetic information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium that:Covered entities such as Jacobi Medical Center must protect a person's individually identifiable health information against deliberate or inadvertent misuse or disclosure. Further, disclosure of protected health information shall take place upon the explicit written consent of an individual or, if without the written authorization "to the extent that such use or disclosure is required by law and the use or disclosure complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of such law" (45 CFR 164.512 [a] [1]).
(1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, health care clearinghouse; and
(2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual" (45 CFR 160.103).
In this matter, Jacobi Medical Center disclosed the child W.'s "protected health information" without prior written consent of the legal parent, Non-Respondent Mother R., pursuant to this court's judicial subpoena which expressly authorized the release of the child's records for use in this child abuse and neglect proceeding as required by the provisions of Family Court Act § 1038 (a) ( see Matter of B. Children, 23 Misc 3d 1119 [A] [Fam Ct, Kings County 2009] finding "HIPAA's privacy regulations broadly allow for the disclosure of medical or hospital records in response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order' " quoting 45 CFR 164.512 [e] [1] [i]).
To enforce these requirements, HIPAA regulations provide for a "qualified protective order" to issue which "[p]rohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such information was requested" (45 CFR 164.512 [e] [1] [v] [A]). In the Matter of B. Children (23 Misc 3d 1119 [A] [Fam Ct, Kings County 2009), the family court in a child protective proceeding, "in an effort to ensure that the records [a subject child's post-incident hospital records] are not used for any purpose other than this proceeding," entered a qualified protective order pursuant to 45 CFR 164.512 (e) (1) (v) (A) barring the parties "from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the [instant] litigation" and requiring the return of the records to the court at the end of the proceeding. Tiered civil money penalties can be imposed for each violation of HIPAA requirements ranging in amounts from $100 to $50,000 (42 USC § 1320d-5 [a] [3]). Where a person knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA requirements, a criminal penalty of a fine of not more than $50,000, imprisonment not more than one year, or both, can be imposed (see 42 USC § 1320d-6 [b] [1]). If the offense is committed under false pretenses, the offender can be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than five years, or both (42 USC § 1320d-6 [b] [2]). "If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm," the offender can be fined $250,000, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both (42 USC § 1320d-6 [b] [3]). Criminal sanctions are enforced by the Department of Justice.
In sum, HIPAA privacy regulations permit Jacobi Medical Center to disclose the child W.'s protected health information in response to the judicial subpoena issued by this court for the express purpose of use in this child abuse and neglect adjudication. However, disclosure of this information for any purpose other than this child abuse and neglect proceeding is prohibited.
Access to the Children's Educational and the Child W.'s Special Education Records
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and requires that individually identifiable information about students be kept confidential (see 20 USC § 1232g; 34 CFR part 99). Special education records of students with disabilities also must be kept confidential as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (see 20 USC § 1400, et seq; 29 USC § 794). In general, in order to release any information from a student's education record, a school must have written permission from the child's parent or the student, if eligible to give consent (to be eligible a student must be age 18 years or older or attending a school beyond the high school level).
Respondent S. is the father of the child V. and is authorized to consent to the disclosure of her school records (see 34 CFR 99.10). However, Respondent S. is not the father of the child W. and is not authorized to consent to the release of her education and special education records. The school disclosed W.'s education and special education records pursuant to a judicial subpoena for use in this child abuse and neglect proceeding and was not on notice that these confidential education records would be disclosed in any other proceeding or used for any other purpose ( see 34 CFR 99.31 [a] [9] [i]). In the absence of specific statutory or regulatory otherwise, Respondent S. and other parties and counsel are not authorized or permitted to release the child W.'s education and special education records for use by counsel in any adjudication other than this proceeding for which the information was requested.
Access to Confidential Records Submitted in this Article 10 Proceeding for
Use by Respondent's Defense Counsel in a Concurrent Criminal Proceeding
The Family Court Act expressly recognizes that "[f]or the protection of children, the family court has jurisdiction over proceedings under this article notwithstanding the fact that a criminal court also has or may be exercising jurisdiction over the facts alleged in the petition or complaint" (Family Court Act § 1013 [b]) and "[n]othing in this article shall be interpreted to preclude concurrent proceedings in the family court and criminal court" (Family Court Act § 1014 [c]). Further, the " separate and civil' nature of an article 10 proceeding is indelibly clear from its provisions" (People v Roselle, 84 NY2d 350, 355 [1994] quoting People v Smith, 62 NY2d 306, 311 [1984]). In People v Roselle, the Court of Appeals held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not preclude the criminal prosecution of a defendant for the same incident that resulted in a neglect finding in the Family Court article 10 proceeding. The Court distinguished the nature and purpose of an article 10 proceeding stating as follows:
"While an article 10 petition may identify the perpetrator of enumerated abusive acts, the real subject of the petition is the child, whose welfare and safety are at the heart of a proceeding designed to expeditiously determine the most suitable environment for the child and institute corrective measures for the benefit of both the child and the parents. Notwithstanding that the same set of facts is in issue, defendant misapprehends the nature of the article 10 proceeding by arguing that the identical legal issue is the subject of this criminal action" ( People v Roselle, 84 NY2d at 357 [internal citations omitted]).The issue before the family court was "defendant's ability to adequately care for his daughter, not his criminal culpability" (id.).
The mere fact of a concurrent criminal court proceeding does not create a right, in and of itself, entitling Respondent S. to turn over confidential records disclosed expressly for use in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding to his criminal defense counsel for use in the criminal proceeding arising from the same incident. Extensive statutes and regulations require that in order for the criminal defense counsel to obtain these records, counsel must comply with statutory procedures for proper disclosure in a criminal proceeding (see Criminal Procedure Law § 240.40; People v Thurston, 209 AD2d 976, 977 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 915 [1995], citing Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d 1042, 1044 [1993] holding that "[a]lthough a subpoena duces tecum may not be used to ascertain the existence of evidence, it is permissible to compel production of specific documents that are relevant and material to issues in a pending judicial proceeding"). The criminal court will then make determinations as to relevance and materiality of the documents subpoenaed or requested. In Pennsylvania v Ritchie (480 US 39 [1987]), the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Sixth Amendment requires as a pre-trial obligation the disclosure of confidential child protective records to a criminal defendant who was charged by the prosecution with rape and sexual abuse of his minor daughter, the same allegations investigated by child protective services in the State of Pennsylvania. The Court held as follows: "A defendant's right to discover exculpatory evidence does not include the unsupervised authority to search through the Commonwealth's files . . . Although the eye of an advocate may be helpful to a defendant in ferreting out information . . . this Court has never held — even in the absence a statute restricting disclosure — that a defendant alone may make the determination as to the materiality of the information" (Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 US at 59 [internal citations omitted]). The Court concluded that the defendant's right to a fair trial "can be protected fully by requiring that the CYS [child protective] files be submitted only to the trial court for in camera review" (id. at 60). The Court noted that this rule denies the defendant "the benefits of an advocate's eye' " but found that the interests of the State in maintaining the confidentiality of child protective records were compelling:
"To allow full disclosure to defense counsel in this type of case would sacrifice unnecessarily the Commonwealth's compelling interest in protecting its child-buse information. If the CYS [child protective] records were made available to defendants, even through counsel, it could have a seriously adverse effect on Pennsylvania's efforts to uncover and treat abuse. Child abuse is one of the most difficult crimes to detect and prosecute, in large part because there often are no witnesses except the victim. A child's feelings of vulnerability and guilt and his or her unwillingness to come forward are particularly acute when the abuser is a parent. It therefore is essential that the child have a state-designated person to whom he may turn, and to do so with the assurance of confidentiality" ( id.).
In view of the likely potential for harm to the child W. and the danger of impeding an investigation of child protective services which would result from unrestricted disclosure of hospital and education records of the child W., child protective reports and case notes, and the Validator's Report and videotape recording prepared by ACS's expert witness, and, in view of the extensive statutory protections afforded to such records, the court has issued this Qualified Protective Order (see Matter of Crystal AA., 271 AD2d 771, 772 [3d Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 903 [2000] stating that "[i]n recognition of the emotional trauma or embarrassment that a child may experience in the discovery climate," Family Court § 1038 [d] authorizes the court to issue a protective order). The Qualified Protective Order bars unrestricted disclosure of pretrial discovery records and documents submitted pursuant to judicial subpoena and exchanged in discovery expressly for use in this Family Court Act article 10 proceeding and directs parties and counsel to comply with statutory mandates and procedures governing disclosure of such records and documents. This Qualified Protective Order does not place restrictions on Respondent's trial preparation in this child protective proceeding. Nor does it in any way have any impact on Respondent's ability to obtain relevant and material documents for use in the concurrent criminal court proceeding, which his criminal defense counsel may seek in criminal court in accordance with criminal law procedures.
Accordingly, in compliance with federal and state law and regulation, this Qualified Protective Order is issued to bar the unrestricted use, disclosure, and re-disclosure of child protective investigative records, hospital and child advocacy center records for the child W., the Validator's Report as to the alleged sexual abuse of W., and school records of the child W., obtained pursuant to court orders and subpoenas issued by the court and provided through discovery process in this Family Court Act article 10 proceeding.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Notify counsel and the parties. ENTER: Dated: Bronx, New York July 21, 2014 ______________________________ Carol R. Sherman, Judge Family Court, Bronx County