Kelly Woods v. Department of Children and Families (SPR 20253125)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 31, 2025 SPR25/3125 Steven S. Treat, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Children and Families 1 Ashburton Place, Third Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Treat: I have received the petition of Kelly Woods 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 August 8, 2025, Ms. Woods requested: …all records maintained by the Department of Children and Families – Cape and Islands Area Office relating to [five identified individuals] [including] … all documents, reports, summaries, internal notes, emails, communications, safety plans, service referrals, case conference documentation, third-party communications, internal decision-making records, ADA-related accommodations, 5lA and 51B reports (and associated findings), police reports (at least 1 known 2024, at least 3 known 2025) and any documentation reflecting involvement by caseworkers, supervisors, or outside contractors between January 1, 2022 and present. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2699 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 25, 2025). In my September 25th determination I ordered the Department to provide Ms. Woods with a response to the request. The Department responded on October 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Woods petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3125, 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 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

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR25/3125 Page 2 October 31, 2025 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. Attorney 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Woods’ interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. It is unclear if Ms. Woods may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Ms. Woods a greater right of access to the responsive records. The Department’s October 23rd Response In its October, 2025 response, the Department cited numerous statutes as they operate through Exemption (a), as well as Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, to withhold any responsive records, “[w]ithout confirming or denying such records exist.” The Department also stated: …to the extent that this request seeks records pertaining to proceedings in Juvenile Court, please be advised all juvenile court case records are confidential and exempt from public records disclosure… [W]hile these records are not subject to disclosure under the public records law, you may have a unique right of access to them. Requests regarding records pertaining to you, your child, or your client must be directed to the area office that handles or is handling the case with properly executed authorization to release information.

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR25/3125 Page 3 October 31, 2025 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Woods stated, “DCF’s conduct constitutes continuing and willful violation of the Public Records Law… Each day of non-production is a separate, ongoing violation…” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the Department cited G. L. c. 119, §§ 51E, 51F (constraining the release of reports of child abuse and neglect); G. L. c. 119, § 23C(b)(xvii) (limiting the release of records and information pertaining to foster parents and household members); G. L. c. 66A (limiting release of information concerning data subjects); G.L. c. 112, §§ 135-135B (limiting release of social worker/client communications); 110 C.M.R. 12.00 (regulating the release of Department records); 801 C.M.R. 3.00 (regulation the release of personal data systems); 42 USC § 671(a)(8) (Title IV-E of the Social Security Act); 42 U.S.C. § 510a(b)(2)(B)(viii)-(xi) (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act); and 45 C.F.R. § 205.50 (Federal regulation of Title IV- E).

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR25/3125 Page 4 October 31, 2025 Under Exemption (a), the Department stated: Please be advised that your requests seek records that, if they exist, would be contain[ed] in DCF clinical case files, investigative case files, and foster care files. Without confirming or denying such records exist, DCF clinical case files, investigative case files, and foster care files are category of records that are exempt from disclosure under the public records law… A state agency may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR25/3125 Page 5 October 31, 2025 privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its October 23, 2025 response, the Department recited the language of Exemption (c). Burden of Specificity Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear whether the Department possesses records responsive to Ms. Woods’ request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). To the extent responsive records exist, I find it is additionally unclear what records the Department intends to withhold. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemptions (a) and (c), and the statutes cited in its response. Further, the Department must explain with specificity how such exemptions apply to the withheld records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Woods with a response to the 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. Woods 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: Kelly Woods