Michael P. Welsh, Esq. v. Department of Children and Families (SPR 20253268)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 20, 2025 SPR25/3268 Steven S. Treat, Esq. Records Access Officer Assistant General Counsel Department of Children and Families 600 Washington Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Dear Attorney Treat: I have received the petition of Michael P. Welsh, Esq., of the Law Office of Michael P. Welsh, 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 September 4, 2025, Attorney Welsh requested the following: I am in receipt of the DCF Case Dictation Reports and related documents pertaining to [an identified] Case Name . . . [and identified] ID . . . . Upon review, it is clear that the redactions applied to these documents are improper and far exceed what is permissible under the relevant statutes. . . . Therefore, I hereby demand . . . [t]hat the Department of Children and Families, pursuant to its obligations under G.L. c. 119, § 51E, immediately provide me with a complete and properly redacted copy of all records in [an identified] client file[.] The Department provided a response on September 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Welsh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3268, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on November 18, 2025, the Department provided a supplemental response. Attorney Welsh further appealed this supplemental response in an email received by this office on November 19, 2025. Purpose of Request; Identity of Requestor 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 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. SPR25/3268 Page 2 November 20, 2025 to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Welsh’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. Additionally, based on information provided in the appeal, it is unclear if Attorney Welsh 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 Attorney Welsh a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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. 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. The Department’s September 26th and November 18th Responses In its September 26, 2025 response, the Department stated, “our regional counsel . . . [reviewed] the record that was provided to you. The determination has been made [by the Department] that the record has been properly redacted. Another copy will not be issued at this time.” In its supplemental November 18, 2025 response to Attorney Welsh and this office, the Department denied the request, “[w]ithout confirming or denying such records exist[.]” In denying the reqest, the Department cited numerous federal and state statutes and regulations as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, as well as Exemption (c). The Department further requested that this office dismiss Attorney Welsh’s appeal where he, “has identified in his appeal that the records sought are subject to active litigation in Norfolk Probate & Family Court[.]”

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR25/3268 Page 3 November 20, 2025 Current Appeal In his November 6, 2025 appeal petition, Attorney Welsh provides multiple pages of redacted documents and explains, “[o]n September 4, 2025, I submitted a written demand to . . . [the Department] . . . objecting to the Department’s excessive and improper redactions.” He contends, “[d]espite my clear statutory entitlement . . . under G.L. c. 119, §§ 51E–51F, [the Department] has withheld substantial factual information . . .” and “applied blanket redactions to entire paragraphs . . . containing non-exempt . . . material[.]” He additionally states that the responsive records, “are essential to ongoing judicial proceedings in the Norfolk Probate and Family Court (Docket No. NO24D1557DR)[.]” In his further appeal of the Department’s supplemental response, Attorney Welsh contends that the Department’s “position is a gross misstatement of Massachusetts public records law[.]” He additionally objects to the Department’s request for this office to dismiss his appeal due to the above-referenced litigation and states, “[m]y request . . . is directly relevant to multiple proceedings, including civil claims and public accountability.” Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Attorney Welsh’s request, remains active and ongoing in the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court. See Welsh, Michael P vs. Welsh, Jennifer M (Norfolk County Probate and Family Court Docket No. NO24D1557DR). In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael P. Welsh, Esq.