David N. v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services
16 A.3d 991
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- David N. v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services; Maryland locality investigates a report of suspected child abuse where the alleged abuse occurred in Maryland but the victim lives out of state.
- A 15-year-old Maryland resident was accused of sexual abuse of a Virginia resident 4-year-old girl at a Maryland picnic; the Department of Social Services (DSS) found indicated child sexual abuse.
- David challenged the Department’s statutory authority under FL § 5-706 to investigate abuse reports when the victim did not reside in Maryland, prompting an ALJ ruling in favor of dismissal.
- HB 550 (2003) amended subtitle 7 of the Family Law Article, creating a framework for out-of-state abuse reports and clarifying investigative responsibilities, but the court analyzes whether 5-706(a) can be read in the disjunctive to authorize Maryland DSS investigations when the victim lives outside Maryland.
- The circuit court reversed the ALJ’s dismissal and held that 5-706(a) is ambiguous and, under statutory construction, authorizes Maryland DSS to investigate Maryland-based abuse even if the victim resides outside Maryland.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirms, concluding that 5-706(a) is ambiguous and must be read to permit investigations of Maryland-based abuse where the victim lives outside Maryland, consistent with the statute’s overall purpose to protect children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 5-706(a) authorizes investigation if the victim lives outside Maryland. | David N. argues the provision is conjunctive—investigation only if both victim lives in MD and abuse occurred in MD. | Department contends 5-706(a) is ambiguous and should be read disjunctively to cover MD-based abuse even if victim resides out of state. | Yes; 5-706(a) is ambiguous and must be read disjunctively, authorizing investigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reier v. State Dept. of Assessments and Taxation, 397 Md. 2, 915 A.2d 970 (Md. 2007) (statutory interpretation canon allowing conjunctive language to be read disjunctively to effect legislative intent)
- In Reier v. State Department of Assessments and Taxation, 397 Md. 2, 915 A.2d 970 (Md. 2007) (same as above; canonical precedent cited in analysis)
- Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City, 387 Md. 1, 874 A.2d 439 (Md. 2005) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent principles referenced)
- Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 987 A.2d 18 (Md. 2010) (ambiguity and harmonization within statutory scheme; canons of construction )
- Himes Assocs., Ltd. v. Anderson, 178 Md.App. 504, 943 A.2d 30 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation and de novo review for legal questions)
- Serio v. Baltimore County, 384 Md. 373, 863 A.2d 952 (Md. 2004) (contextual statutory interpretation and legislative purpose)
- Gordon Family Partnership v. Gar On Jer, 348 Md. 129, 702 A.2d 753 (Md. 1997) (harmonization within statutory scheme)