Are Maryland Juvenile Services Administration records about a child kept confidential the same way juvenile court records are?

Plain-English summary

The Chairman of a committee studying the availability and use of juvenile records asked whether "juvenile court record," a term protected from disclosure under CJ §3-828(b), included the records kept by the Juvenile Services Administration (JSA), the agency whose intake officers and counselors work alongside juvenile courts. The opinion agreed with JSA's own longstanding view that its records deserved the same confidentiality as court records. Reviewing the Juvenile Causes Subtitle's stated purposes, including removing "the taint of criminality" from children and promoting their rehabilitation, and a Court of Appeals decision rejecting a narrow reading of a similar juvenile confidentiality provision, the opinion concluded that JSA's three categories of records, copies of actual court records, records created by JSA intake officers and counselors performing functions integrally tied to the court's own proceedings, and records maintained by JSA institutions housing committed children, all fell within the protected term. The opinion also found support in a separate statute protecting JSA research records derived from those same underlying files, reasoning that protecting research data while leaving the underlying case records unprotected would make little sense.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Are Maryland Juvenile Services Administration records about a child kept confidential the same way juvenile court records are?
According to this 1984 opinion, yes. The Attorney General concluded that JSA records identifying a child, whether copies of court records, records created by JSA intake officers and counselors, or records kept by JSA institutions, are protected as "juvenile court records" under CJ §3-828(b).

Why did JSA's own records count as "juvenile court records" if the statute never mentioned JSA by name?
The opinion explained that JSA's intake officers, juvenile counselors, and institutional staff perform functions that are direct extensions of the juvenile court's own work, so their records either duplicate court records, document the same underlying facts the court relies on, or record actions taken to carry out a court's disposition, meaning disclosure of JSA's records would effectively defeat the confidentiality the statute gives to the court's own files.

Did records that don't identify a specific child get the same protection?
The opinion noted that its analysis concerned only JSA records that name or otherwise identify the children involved; records stripped of identifying information could be used for research or study and were separately addressed by the Health-General Article's confidentiality provisions for research data.

Background and statutory framework

CJ §3-828(b), part of the Juvenile Causes Subtitle enacted by Chapter 554, Laws of Maryland 1975, makes "juvenile court records" confidential except by court order for good cause, while related subsections protect police records on juveniles and permit sealing of records once a child turns 21. The opinion construed that undefined term in light of the Subtitle's stated purposes in CJ §3-802, including protecting children's rehabilitation and requiring liberal construction of the Subtitle, and against the backdrop of the Juvenile Services Administration's statutory role under the Health-General Article, where JSA intake officers and counselors, though a separate agency from the courts since JSA's 1966 creation, continue to work under the direction of juvenile court judges in carrying out functions like intake screening (CJ §3-810), detention decisions (CJ §3-815), and court-ordered social studies (CJ §3-818).

Citations

Statutes:

• CJ §3-828(a) of the Maryland Code (confidentiality of police records on juveniles)
• CJ §3-828(b) of the Maryland Code (confidentiality of juvenile court records)
• CJ §3-828(c) of the Maryland Code (sealing of juvenile court records)
• CJ §3-828(d) of the Maryland Code (access by Parole and Probation and the Parole Commission)
• CJ §3-828(e) of the Maryland Code (access by the Division of Correction)
• CJ §3-828(f) of the Maryland Code (access for criminal justice research, without identifying information)
• CJ §3-802(a) of the Maryland Code (purposes of the Juvenile Causes Subtitle)
• CJ §3-802(b) of the Maryland Code (liberal construction mandate)
• CJ §3-810 of the Maryland Code (JSA intake officer functions, petitions, and informal adjustments)
• CJ §3-815 of the Maryland Code (intake officer authority to place a child in detention or shelter care)
• CJ §3-818(a) of the Maryland Code (juvenile counselor social study function)
• CJ §3-818(c) of the Maryland Code (admissibility of counselor reports at waiver and disposition hearings)
• Health-General Article §4-101 through §4-103 (confidentiality of JSA research and study records)
• Health-General Article §4-102(b) (non-identifying research records exception)
• Health-General Article §6-114(1) (JSA research and development unit statistics function)
• Health-General Article §§6-126 through 6-128 (JSA court-services personnel work under juvenile court judges' direction)
• Chapter 554, Laws of Maryland 1975 (enactment of CJ §3-828(b))
• Chapter 126, Laws of Maryland 1966 (creation of the Juvenile Services Administration)
• Maryland Rule 921 (related juvenile record procedure)

Cases:

• In re Stephen K., 289 Md. 294, 298 (1981) (legislative intent must be gathered from the entire statutory scheme)
• Montgomery Ward v. Cliser, 267 Md. 406, 413 (1972) (juvenile confidentiality provisions read broadly to protect rehabilitation, not narrowly by literal terms)
• In re Lawrence T., 285 Md. 621, 625-26 (1979) (JSA intake officers have substantial discretion over whether to file a petition)
• Westfall v. State, 243 Md. 413, 423-24 (1966) (indirect disclosure of a juvenile record to a jury was reversible error)
• Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 259 Md. 586, 592 (1983) (longstanding administrative practice entitled to deference absent clear error)
• Jackson Marino Sales v. State Dep't of Assessments, 32 Md. App. 213, 217 (1976) (same, on deference to administrative practice)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1984/Volume69_1984.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

JUVENILE CAUSES

Records-Confidentiality-"Juvenile Court Records"-Records Of Juvenile Services Administration-JSA Records Are Subject To Confidentiality As Juvenile Court Records.

December 17, 1984

Charles O. Fisher, Jr., Esquire
Chairman, Committee on Availability and Use of Juvenile Records

You have requested our opinion on whether the term "juvenile court record", as used in §3-828(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJ" Article) of the Maryland Code, encompasses the records of the Juvenile Services Administration ("JSA"). While the statute makes no direct reference to JSA's records, the policy of the JSA has been to consider its records to be the equivalent of juvenile court records and, as such, subject to the confidentiality provisions of CJ §3-828(b).1

For the reasons given below, we agree with the Juvenile Services Administraton that its records are protected by the provisions of CJ §3-828(b).

I
Introduction

Section 3-828(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, enacted as part of a general revision of the Juvenile Causes Subtitle by Chapter 554, Laws of Maryland 1975, states:

"A juvenile court record pertaining to a child is confidential and its contents may not be divulged, by subpoena or otherwise, except by order of the court upon good cause shown. This subsection does not prohibit access to and the use of the court record in a proceeding in the court involving the child, by personnel of the court, the State's Attorney, counsel for the child, or authorized personnel of the Juvenile Services Administration."2

Other provisions of CJ §3-828 have been enacted or revised since 1975.3 This particular subsection, however, has remained unchanged since its enactment.

Before the JSA's creation in 1966 (Chapter 126, Laws of Maryland 1966), the functions now performed by its intake workers, juvenile counselors, and other court-services personnel were performed by employees of each juvenile court. Under the present system, these court-services personnel, while employed by the JSA, work under the direction of the juvenile court judges. Health-General Article ("HG" Article) §6-127. See also HG §§6-126 and 6-128. Thus, JSA records on individual children are integrally related to the proceedings of juvenile courts.

The records with which you are concerned fall into three basic categorms: (1) copies of juvenile court records retained by the JSA; (2) records created by JSA court-services personnel that are not records of the juvenile courts; and (3) records created and maintained by the various institutions that the JSA manages.

II
Statutory Construction

A. The Purposes of Confidentiality

The Court of Appeals has given ample directon on the construction of statutes generally, and the Juvenile Causes Subtitle in particular:

"As we have indicated countless times, the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent ... Of course, when construing a provision such as [CJ] §3-830, which is part of a single statutory scheme, the legislative intention must be gathered from the entire statute, rather than from only one part." In re Stephen K., 289 Md. 294, 298 (1981).

See also 55 Opinions of the Attorney General 320 (1970).

Hence, to ascertain whether the General Assembly intended to include JSA records in the undefined term "juvenile court record", we first look to CJ §3-802, which states the purposes of the Juvenile Causes Subtitle:

"(a) The purposes of this subtitle are:

(1) To provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of this subtitle; and to provide for a program of treatment, training, and rehabilitation consistent with the child's best interests and the protection of the public interest;

(2) To remove from children committing delinquent acts the taint of criminality and the consequences of criminal behavior;

(3) To conserve and strengthen the child's family ties and to separate a child from his parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the interest of public safety;

(4) If necessary to remove a child from his home, to secure for him custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his parents;

(5) To provide judicial procedures for carrying out the provisions of this subtitle.

(b) This subtitle shall be liberally construed to effectuate these purposes."

The confidentiality provisions of CJ §3-828 clearly are intended to remove the "taint of criminality" from persons who have been adjudicated delinquent children and to promote the rehabilitation of those persons.4 In our view, those provisions are also intended to protect and to promote the rehabilitation of children who come within the ambit of the juvenile courts, but who are not adjudicated delinquent.

In a similar situation, the Court of Appeals held that a juvenile arrest record is inadmissible as character evidence in a civil action, although the applicable statute's literal terms barred only juvenile court adjudications from admissibility. Montgomery Ward v. Cliser, 267 Md. 406, 413 (1972). In response to the argument that the statute's scope should be narrowly construed according to its specific terms, the Court stated:

"[T]he legislative intent to allow a person who may have committed an act of delinquency as a juvenile to truly rehabilitate himself would be distorted by appellant's argument. We reject appellant's construction as, in our view, it would subvert the manifest intent of the Legislature to protect citizens against public disclosure, at least in civil proceedings, of charges brought against them as juveniles." 267 Md. at 414 (emphasis in original).

We belive that a narrow construction of CJ §3-828(b) would, likewise, subvert the intent of that section.

Like police records on juveniles [CJ §3-828(a)], juvenile court records [CJ §3-828(b)] are kept confidential to protect children (and adults who have juvenile records) from the "taint of criminality" and the "consequences of criminal behavior" and to promote their full rehabilitation. Confidentiality of JSA records serves the same purposes, for those records also pertain to "private affairs heavily charged with feelings of anxiety, guilt and recrimination" that may impose a lifelong stigma on the child concerned. See 55 Opinions of the Attorney General 320, 321 (1970). Moreover, since JSA records contain much of the same information found in protected police and court records, the purposes of §3-828(a) and (b) would be defeated if JSA records were not themselves protected from public scrutiny. Finally, we note particularly the mandate of CJ §3-802(b) that the provisions of the Juvenile Causes Subtitle "be liberally construed to effectuate [its] purposes".

Hence, as explained more fully below, we believe that the General Assembly intended the term "juvenile court records" to include the three categories of JSA records that we have identified above as being related to juvenile court proceedings.

B. The Nature of JSA Records

1. Copies of Juvenile Court Records

Unquestionably, records in the first category, those that are copies of juvenile court records, are covered by CJ §3-828(b). Releasing those copies would be tantamount to releasing the original records of the court itself and, therefore, clearly contrary to the statute's intent.

2. Records Created by JSA Court-Services Personnel

Records in the second category, those created by JSA court-services personnel, do not necessarily encompass actual court records. Nonetheless, they are so integrally related to court records as to require the same protection.

The records in this category are created by intake officers, juvenile counselors, and their supervisors, whose functions are directly derivative of the juvenile court's functions. Thus, a JSA intake officer receives and investigates the initial complaint concerning a child. CJ §3-810(a) and (b)(1). And, in many cases, the intake officer is empowered to deny the complainant authorization to pursue judicial action, on the grounds that the juvenile court has no jurisdiction or that judicial action would not be in the child's best interest. CJ §3-810(g).5 Thus, JSA intake workers often decide whether a juvenile court should exercise its jurisdiction in a particular case. See In re Lawrence T., 285 Md. 621, 625-26 (1979) (intake officer has substantial discretion in considering whether to file petition with juvenile court). Moreover, the intake officer may place a child in detention or in shelter care pending a hearing. CJ §3-815. If the intake officer believes judicial action would not be appropriate, the officer may propose and conduct an "informal adjustment" of the matter, including placing the child under the supervision of a JSA juvenile counselor, supervision analogous to probation. CJ §3-810(e) and (f).

JSA juvenile counselors similarly function as adjuncts of the juvenile court. At the court's direction and for its information, a juvenile counselor may carry out a study of the child and all matters relevant to the child's case. CJ §3-818(a). The counselor's report, which may include recommendations of appropriate court action, is admissible into evidence both at a hearing to determine whether the juvenile court should waive its jurisdiction and at a disposition hearing following an adjudication. CJ §3-818(c). Juvenile counselors supervise children pursuant to a court's disposition or an informal adjustment, find placements in foster homes or residential facilities for children committed to the JSA's custody, and visit children committed to institutions.

It is thus clear that the JSA records created by court-services personnel bear enough correspondence to the juvenile courts' records as to trigger the same legislative concern for confidentiality. Many of these JSA records, in fact, consist of the very information on which the court records are based; others record actions taken in carrying out a court's orders; still others are produced in the course of informal adjustments substituted for formal court action. In each of these cases, confidentiality serves the statute's primary purpose of treating and rehabilitating the children who come within the statute's ambit, whether or not they are subjects of juvenile court adjudications. Cf. Montgomery Ward v. Cliser, 267 Md. at 414. Conversely, release of JSA records in this category would effectively breach the confidentiality of juvenile court records, because the information contained in the JSA records is the same information, or would lead to the same information, as is contained in the juvenile court records.

3. Records Maintained by JSA Institutions

Records in the third category, those maintained by JSA institutions, also must be kept confidential in our view, if juvenile court records are to be afforded the full protection intended by CJ §3-828(b).

These records include, for each child committed to an institution or detained there pending a hearing, copies of JSA records in the first two categories, as well as records created by the institution in the course of evaluating and treating the child. Such records are not only created and maintained pursuant to the court's proceedings regarding a child, but are also often forwarded to the court to aid it in determining whether the child should be released or transferred to a different type of facility. Clearly, any breach of the confidentiality of JSA institutional records would expose a child to publicity concerning the very matters that CJ §3-828(b) seeks to keep private. See Westfall v. State, 243 Md. 413, 423-24 (1966) (permitting jury to learn indirectly of witness's juvenile record, through question whether he had ever been confined in Maryland Training School, held reversible error).

C. Additional Considerations

We find additional support for our conclusion in HG §§4-101 through 4-103. Those provisions safeguard the confidentiality of JSA records "assembled or obtained for research or study" that name or otherwise identify individuals. HG §4-101. Of necessity, some of those research records derive from records and information kept by JSA court-services personnel and JSA institutions, for the JSA's research and development unit is statutorily required to "[c]ompile accurate statistics and reliable information on all aspects of the juvenile program of this State". HG §6-114(1). Protecting the confidentiality of information after it has been "assembled ... for research or study" would serve little purpose if the underlying records from which that information was obtained were not themselves confidential. Consequently, we believe, the General Assembly must have intended JSA records pertaining to individuals to be kept confidential under all circumstances.6

III
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that the confidentiality afforded "juvenile court records" under CJ §3-828(b) should be construed to extend to the related records of the Juvenile Services Administration, to effectuate the protective and rehabilitative purposes of the Juvenile Causes Subtitle.

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General

James P. Casey
Assistant Attorney General

Avery Aisenstark
Chief Counsel,
Opinions and Advice

1 Your inquiry concerns, of course, only JSA records that name or otherwise identify the children to whom they pertain. Records that do not identify individuals may be used for research or study and are not protected by confidentiality provisions. See CJ §3-828(f). See also Health-General Article §4-102(b).

2 See also Maryland Rule 921. The complete text of CJ §3-828 is:

"(a) A police record concerning a child is confidential and shall be maintained separate from those of adults. Its contents may not be divulged, by subpoena or otherwise, except by order of the court upon good cause shown. This subsection does not prohibit access to and confidential use of the record by the Juvenile Services Administration or in the investigation and prosecution of the child by any law enforcement agency.

(b) A juvenile court record pertaining to a child is confidential and its contents may not be divulged, by subpoena or otherwise, except by order of the court upon good cause shown. This subsection does not prohibit access to and the use of the court record in a proceeding in the court involving the child, by personnel of the court, the State's Attorney, counsel for the child, or authorized personnel of the Juvenile Services Administration.

(c) The court, on its own motion or on petition, and for good cause shown, may order the court records of a child sealed, and, upon petition or on its own motion, shall order them sealed after the child has reached 21 years of age. If sealed, the court records of a child may not be opened, for any purpose, except by order of the court upon good cause shown.

(d) This section does not prohibit access to or use of any juvenile record by the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation or the Maryland Parole Commission when the Division or the Commission is carrying out any of their statutory duties either at the direction of a court of competent jurisdiction, or when the Maryland Parole Commission is carrying out any of its statutory duties, if the record concerns a charge or adjudication of delinquency.

(e) This section does not prohibit access to and use of any juvenile record by the Maryland Division of Correction when the Division is carrying out any of its statutory duties if: (1) the individual to whom the record pertains is committed to the custody of the Division; and (2) the record concerns an adjudication of delinquency.

(f) Subject to the provisions of §4-102 of the Health-General Article, this section does not prohibit access to or use of any juvenile record for criminal justice research purposes. A record used under the subsection may not contain the name of the individual to whom the record pertains, or any other identifying information which could reveal the individual's name."

3 Chapter 814, Laws of Maryland 1978, deleted from CJ §3-828(c) a provision for expunging juvenile court records; Chapter 124, Laws of Maryland 1982, enacted CJ §3-828(d); and Chapter 164, Laws of Maryland 1983, enacted CJ §3-828(e) and (f) and made stylistic changes in CJ §3-828(d).

4 In an earlier Opinion concerning the confidentiality of juvenile records, this office noted:

"In directly focusing upon the area of 'privacy and confidentiality', and its underlying rationale, The President's Task Force on Juvenile Delinquency (of which the learned Judge J. Dudley Digges, now a member of the Maryland Court of Appeals, was an advisor) reported in its work Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, page 38-40, that the case for 'confidentiality' of juvenile petitions, probation officer reports, social or clinical studies and related documents, rested upon the following two premises:

'First, it is generally believed that public disclosure of this material would interfere with the effectiveness of the Court's rehabilitation program.

The purpose of this confidentiality is:

to prevent the humiliation and demoralizing effect of publicity or unnecessary disclosure of private affairs heavily charged with feelings of anxiety, guilt and recrimination. Disclosure would make it more difficult for the court to utilize a child's feeling of self respect in effecting rehabilitation.

Second, the persistence of the stigma of delinquency, with its attendant adverse consequences upon the youth's ability to become reintegrated into the community, obtaining private and public employment, qualifying for bonds, being eligible for military service, obtaining licenses, stands as a self-defeating obstacle to effective rehabilitation and one that persists throughout his life. A basic flaw in our penal system is that "it fails to provide accessible or effective means of fully restoring the social status of the reformed offender'

When Sections 70 [the precursor of CJ §3-802(a)(1) and (2)] and 70-23 [the precursor of CJ §3-828(a)] are considered together, and in light of the general rationale as articulated by the President's Task Force, it is clear that the Maryland Legislature intended not only to provide the most ideal rehabilitative environment possible for a child by making his acts of delinquency inviolate insofar as public disclosure is concerned, but also intended to protect an adult's reputation from being damaged from transgressions which amounted to acts of delinquency during his youth." 55 Opinions of the Attorney General 320, 321-22 (1970).

5 If a complaint is brought by a local department of social services and alleges that the child is in need of the court's assistance because of parental neglect, the intake officer must immediately file a petition to that effect with the court. CJ §3-810(b)(2). If a complaint alleges that a child 16 or over has committed an act that would be a crime of violence if committed by an adult, the intake officer must immediately forward the complaint to the State's Attorney for review and possible action. CJ §3-810(b)(3)(i). In all other cases, the initial decision whether to file a petition with the court is the intake officer's.

If a complaint alleges that the child has committed a "delinquent act", defined in CJ §3-810(k) as any act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, the intake officer's denial of authorization is reviewed by the State's Attorney. CJ §3-810(b)(3)(ii) and (h)(1). In all other cases, a denial is reviewed by the intake officer's regional supervisor. CJ §3-810(i).

6 We note also that JSA's practice of maintaining the confidentiahty of its records has been a long-standing and consistent one. Such an administrative practice, unless clearly erroneous, is entitled to considerable deference in determining the proper construction of a statute under which the administrative agency operates. See, e.g., Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 259 Md. 586, 592 (1983); Jackson Marino Sales v. State Dep't of Assessments, 32 Md. App. 213, 217 (1976).