A quiet evening at home turned into a nightmare when a father was confronted with shocking allegations of child abuse. A Child Protective Services (CPS) worker and a police officer arrived unannounced at his home, informing him that a complaint had been filed and he had been accused of sexually abusing one of his children. The accusation set off a harrowing two-month ordeal that upended his family’s life.
Following the report, the father’s contact with his children was limited to supervised visitation while multiple investigations unfolded. His children were subjected to invasive forensic interviews, and CPS, law enforcement, and his employer – the U.S. military – all conducted independent inquiries. His family endured immense stress, intense humiliation, and disruption as they fought to clear his name.
Months later, CPS issued a letter concluding that the allegations were unfounded and, while the father had suspicions regarding who made the report, the identity of the accuser remained hidden due to CPS regulations and its interpretation of Virginia law.
The father and his wife had recently cut ties with a family member and were not allowing that family member access to the children. Suspecting this disgruntled family member as the source of the false report, the father and his wife hired attorney Aaron Pomeranz at Parks Zeigler to determine their next steps.
The CPS letter to the father referenced recourse as set forth in Virginia Code § 63.2-1514(D), which provides an avenue for revealing the complainant’s identity if the report was made in bad faith or with malicious intent. The falsely accused petitioner (in this case, the father) must seek the Circuit Court’s intervention to access CPS investigation files and compel disclosure of the complainant’s identity.
Virginia Code § 63.2-1514(D) requires three elements to be satisfied in order to obtain the complainant’s identity under what the Court of Appeals later termed the “bad faith disclosure exception”:
Attorney Pomeranz filed a Petition for Release of Records in the Circuit Court on behalf of the father to release the records of CPS’s investigation to him pursuant to Virginia Code § 63.2-1514(D). The petition outlined the facts and alleged who the father believed the complainant to be and why he thought it was this person. The petition asked the Circuit Court to review the documents and determine whether the father had satisfied the requirements as set forth in the Code. The Circuit Court issued a writ of certiorari ordering CPS to provide the documents related to the unfounded report of abuse against the father to the Court and, upon its review, then ordered a hearing on the matter. CPS opposed the petition from the start.
One of the most considerable obstacles in cases such as this one is that the petitioner does not have access to the CPS records and is the only person without knowledge of the contents of these records. While the agency’s attorney and the judge are able to review the documents, the petitioner must build their argument based on limited information. This results in the petitioner often relying solely on his/her theory about who made the report, any information that he/she has learned from the investigation that points to the complainant, and what that person’s motivation could have been.
At the hearing, the father and his wife testified about their strained relationship with the suspected family member and their belief that this individual had made the false report out of spite. Father also testified that some of the information reported could only have been known to this particular family member and further assured the Circuit Court that he would take no action to threaten the life or safety of the family member and that he had no history of violence in general or with respect to this family member. CPS’s counsel argued against the release of the records, stating that the person suspected of making the false accusation had not reported directly to CPS. Instead, a mandatory reporter (a professional, such as a teacher, therapist, or doctor required to report suspected abuse) had passed along the information as required by Virginia Code § 63.2-1509.
This argument and counterargument raised a key and unprecedented legal question: Could the Circuit Court release records if the bad-faith accuser had used a mandatory reporter as an intermediary?
Counsel for CPS highlighted the fact that there were two statutes potentially applicable to the facts of this case:
Utilizing what is often referred to as a negative implication canon, counsel for CPS argued that the legislature leaving out the language regarding causing false reports to be made from Virginia Code § 63.2-1514(D) was intentional and, therefore, would need to be included in that statute to apply to father’s case, and thus the records should not be released.
Attorney Pomeranz reasoned on behalf of the father that the legislature, when drafting the law referenced in CPS’s letter (Virginia Code § 63.2-1514(D)), surely did not intend to create a loophole through which individuals could make bad faith or malicious reports against innocent persons and have their identity remain confidential.
Despite CPS’s cut and dry interpretation of the statutory language of the Code and with limited case law to rely upon, the Circuit Court judge focused on the legislative intent of the statute to provide the records of ill-founded abuse or neglect charges to individuals who have been targeted maliciously or in bad faith. Finding that the father was in the exact situation that the statute was designed to address, the Circuit Court ruled that Code § 63.2-1514(D) applied and that the father had satisfied the requirements to obtain relief under the statute and obtain the records.
Following the Circuit Court’s decision, CPS moved to stay the verdict stating that it was going to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court ordered another hearing to consider arguments on the motion to stay and, following the hearing and consideration of the parties’ briefs, suspended the execution of its final order allowing the father access to the documents until after the appeal was resolved.
Matters before the Court of Appeals are often legally and procedurally complicated, requiring the expertise of competent counsel to navigate successfully. The Court of Appeals requires briefing of the appealed issues brought before it and requires strict compliance with a variety of rules and deadlines. It is critically important that these rules are adhered to and deadlines met. Fortunately for our client, Parks Zeigler has that experience.
In this case, the issue before the Court of Appeals was that of statutory interpretation. Had the Circuit Court erred in its interpretation of Code § 63.2-1514(D)? When the Court of Appeals is asked to interpret a statute, it is bound by the Code’s plain meaning unless the plain meaning is ambiguous or if doing so would lead to an absurd result. If that is the case, it may then consider factors other than the text itself, “such as the purpose, reason, and spirit of the law” in determining the statute’s meaning.
After extensive briefing and oral argument by Attorney Pomeranz before the Court of Appeals, it upheld the Circuit Court’s decision, stating it correctly found that the CPS’s interpretation of Virginia Code § 63.2-1514(D) would both add additional language to the statute and hamstring the purpose it was to serve – to allow those who had been the victim of a report made maliciously or in bad faith to recover for the loss they suffered. Therefore, in this case, the Circuit Court correctly interpreted the statute to include reports made by mandatory reporters that originated from another source who acted maliciously or in bad faith.
When the records were finally released to the father, they confirmed what he and his wife had suspected all along – the report had, in fact, originated from the family member they believed was responsible.
This landmark ruling clarifies that Virginia Code § 63.2-1514(D) applies even when a bad-faith accuser uses a mandatory reporter as an intermediary. While the Court of Appeals did not explicitly extend this interpretation to all third-party reports, the decision provides hope for others seeking justice in similar situations.
If you or a loved one have been falsely accused of child abuse and suspect the complaint was made maliciously or in bad faith, legal options are available. Contact Aaron M. Pomeranz, Esq. or any of our experienced family law attorneys at Parks Zeigler, PLLC to discuss how we can help you fight back and clear your name.
With an office near Town Center, Virginia Beach and a second location beside the Chesapeake courthouse, our team provides quality legal representation across the entire Hampton Roads Area.
Parks Zeigler, PLLC – Attorneys At Law
N/a 
