Lauren Russell v. Department of Children and Families (SPR 20253073)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 3, 2025 SPR25/3073 Steven Treat, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Children and Families 1 Ashburton Place, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Treat: I have received the petition of Lauren Russell, of the Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts, Inc., appealing the response of the Department of Children and Families (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 30, 2025, Ms. Russell requested the following: [1] Relative to bid #BD-23-1034-0009-DSS09-88209/ RFR # DCF IMM24 for Legal Services for Immigrant Children: a. Any contracts awarded as a result of the bid, including extensions and amendments, and including active and inactive contracts. b. Any proposals submitted for the contract, including the scoring of such proposals. c. Any document that indicates the financial compensation that any contractor has received for completing work described in the bid. [2] Any and all electronic and paper correspondence from your agency or people from your agency —internal and external—regarding the Legal Services for Immigrant Children contract(s) and reasonable synonyms, including the capacity of the contract attorneys to provide representation, waiting lists or delays in representation, and the eligibility or ineligibility of children to be provided immigration representation. Please search back to January 1, 2024. [3] Any and all policies, protocols, memoranda, or other written documents, listing criteria for children to be eligible for services under the Legal Services for Immigrant Children contract. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Attorney Steven Treat SPR25/3073 Page 2 November 3, 2025 [4] If any spreadsheets are maintained which detail the children or young adults waiting to be assigned representation through the contract, we request all field labels from that spreadsheet and content of any fields which do not include personally identifiable information. [5] Since the start of the contract on December 27, 2017, the number of referrals made under the Legal Services for Immigrant Children, broken down by active or closed, and, if closed, the outcome; if available, per calendar year. [6] Based on the current population, the immigration status of children and young adults in placement, on the date that such children entered care. [7] During the past three calendar years, the number of waivers applied for under 110 CRM 7.105A, and whether each application was granted or denied; or, in the alternative, during the past three calendar years, redacted copies of waivers applied for under 110 CRM 7.105A, and redacted copies of the decisions on those requests for waivers. The Department responded on August 1, 2025, August 6, 2025, and August 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Russell petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3073, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records.

Attorney Steven Treat SPR25/3073 Page 3 November 3, 2025 The Department’s August 1st, August 6th, and August 13th Responses In its August 1, 2025 response, the Department responded to Ms. Russell stating, “I believe we could benefit from a discussion on the complexity of some of your requests and explain what DCF may or may not have available in response.” The Department and Ms. Russell spoke about the request on August 6, 2025. Subsequently, the Department again responded to Ms. Russell stating, “[a]s per our conversation, you voluntarily agreed to modify your request.” The Department referenced a modification following a conversation with Ms. Russell that she agreed to modify Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 of her original request. In her August 6, 2025 correspondence to the Department, Ms. Russell stated, “I was thinking about the issues a little more, and I think I’d like to take a slightly different approach. Rather than modifying my request, I’d like to supplement my request. So if you could, where we discussed modifications, could you please still specify that you are denying each of my initial requests, the grounds for denial, and also providing alternative information as requested?” On August 13, 2025, the Department stated “I have received most of the records sought which I am in the process of reviewing them for compliance with privacy laws and regs. I estimate being able to provide a response by [August 18, 2025]. Also, I can confirm that I will respond to your original request, and respond as to the supplemental/modified requests we discussed via our call.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Russell states, “[t]he last correspondence I received from Attorney Treat was on August 13, 2025, where he stated that he estimated being able to provide a response by the following Monday (August 18). I replied to Attorney Treat’s email on August 13, 2025, August 22, 2025 and September 2, 2025. I have received no response, and my public records request has not been fulfilled.” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further,

Attorney Steven Treat SPR25/3073 Page 4 November 3, 2025 that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Russell’s request was originally submitted on June 30, 2025, and the Department has not provided responsive records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Russell with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Russell may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lauren Russell