Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Cabinet for Families and Children violated the Open Records Act in denying Lisa Reed's December 30, 2002, request for copies of "all reports and information pertaining to [her grandchildren (including doctors' reports and care plans)]." For the reasons that follow, and based on the authorities cited, we affirm the Cabinet's denial of her request.
By letter dated January 2, 2003, Carrie Hall, an employee in the Cabinet's Records Management Section, notified Ms. Reed that the Cabinet could not honor her request. 1 Ms. Hall explained that Ms. Reed must submit "court-recognized documents stating that [Ms. Reed has] custody, joint custody or a court order authorizing the release of this information" before her request could be honored. Because Ms. Reed was unable to provide the Cabinet with a "court-recognized document" or a court order, on January 9, 2003, Ms. Hall notified Ms. Reed that her request would not be honored because she did "not meet the eligibility for these records as defined in KRS 620.050 which delineates who is entitled to specific information."
Shortly thereafter, Ms. Reed initiated an open records appeal to the Attorney General, asserting that she has "relative placement of [her] grandchildren. " She attached a copy of an October 11, 2001, letter prepared by Nanci Baker, Social Service Worker, directed "To Whom It May Concern," that stated:
Ms. Lisa Reed has been approved as a relative placement for [her grandchildren] by the Cabinet for Families and Children. The children were placed with Ms. Reed on September 28, 2001. She is responsible for all medical and educational needs for the children. [The grandchildren] will be living with Ms. Reed until future permanency goals are established.
It was Ms. Reed's position that this letter established her legal entitlement to the requested records.
In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of Ms. Reed's appeal, Assistant Counsel Jon R. Klein amplified on the Cabinet's position. He confirmed that Ms. Reed does not "qualify to receive the requested records under KRS 620.050(5)," and emphasized that the letter from the Cabinet social worker did not constitute appropriate authorization. Mr. Klein observed:
Ms. Reed is neither the custodial parent nor the legal guardian of either of her grandchildren. According to the Cabinet's records, [the male grandchild] no longer resides with Ms. Reed. [He] was returned to his mother's care on or about September 10, 2002. According to the Cabinet's records, [the female grandchild] does live with Ms. Reed, but Ms. Reed is not [her] legal guardian as [she] was committed to the Cabinet on February 9, 2001.
In support, Mr. Klein attached exhibits documenting the legal status of Ms. Reed's grandchildren. Based on the reasoning set forth in 96-ORD-43, 98-ORD-145, and 99-ORD-197, we affirm the Cabinet's denial of Ms. Reed's request.
KRS 61.878(1)(l) excludes from the mandatory disclosure provisions of the Open Records Act, "public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly." This provision operates in tandem with KRS 620.050(5) to insure the confidentiality of information gathered by the Department for Community Based Services, Division of Protection and Permanency, in cases of reported dependency, neglect, and abuse, and establishes certain circumstances under which, and classes of persons to whom, such information may be made available. KRS 620.050(5) provides.
The report of suspected child abuse, neglect, or dependency and all information obtained by the cabinet or its delegated representative, as a result of an investigation or assessment made pursuant to this section, shall not be divulged to anyone except:
(a) Persons suspected of causing dependency, neglect, or abuse;
(b) The custodial parent or legal guardian of the child alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused;
(c) Persons within the cabinet with a legitimate interest or responsibility related to the case;
(d) Other medical, psychological, educational, or social service agencies, child care administrators, corrections personnel, or law enforcement agencies, including the county attorney's office, the coroner, and the local child fatality response team, that have a legitimate interest in the case;
(e) A noncustodial parent when the dependency, neglect, or abuse is substantiated;
(f) Members of multidisciplinary teams as defined by KRS 620.020 and which operate pursuant to KRS 431.060.
(g) Employees or designated agents of a children's advocacy center; or
(h) Those persons so authorized by a court order.
Under the express terms of this statute, the Cabinet must withhold all information acquired as a result of an investigation conducted pursuant to KRS 620.050 unless the requester can demonstrate that he or she falls within one of the excepted categories codified at KRS 620.050(5)(a) through (h). Although Ms. Reed has established that she has "relative placement" of at least one of her grandchildren, she has not established that she is the child (children's) custodial parent or legal guardian within the meaning of KRS 620.050(5)(b) or that she otherwise falls within one of the remaining statutorily recognized classifications. A letter prepared by a social worker does not invest her with the status of custodial parent or legal guardian. Nor has she produced a court order directing disclosure of the disputed records to her. Insofar as none of the criteria found in KRS 620.050(5) are satisfied, we find that Ms. Reed is not entitled to receive a copy of those records.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 On the same, day Ms. Hall issued a standard response to Ms. Reed in which she advised that the nonexempt records identified in the request would be available for inspection on February 2, 2003. Upon closer inspection, Ms. Hall reevaluated the Cabinet's position and issued the response that gave rise to this appeal.