Rodriguez, Tatiana v. Department of Children and Families (SPR 20260619)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 5, 2026 SPR26/0619 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 Tatiana A. Rodriguez, of Family Matters 1st, Inc., appealing the response of the Department of Children and Families (Department/DCF) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 1, 2025, Ms. Rodriguez made the following request: Please supply copies of public records containing the following information from January 1, 2019 to the present, broken down by calendar year, fiscal year, or any other annual format in which such data is maintained (referred to hereafter as “year”) unless otherwise specified: [1] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of children who were the subject of reports of child abuse or neglect pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51A (“51A Reports”), including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment, substance abuse, excessive corporal punishment, educational neglect), and/or Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of children who were the subject of 51A Reports broken down by the race or ethnicity of the children who were the subject of 51A Reports. [2] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of 51A Reports, including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office. 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. SPR26/0619 Page 2 March 5, 2026 [3] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of 51A Reports that DCF identified as emergencies, including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of 51A Reports that DCF identified as emergencies broken down by the race or ethnicity of the children who were the subject of those 51A Reports. [4] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of 51A reports of child abuse or neglect that DCF identified as non-emergencies, including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of 51A Reports that DCF identified as non-emergencies broken down by the race or ethnicity of the children who were the subject of such 51A Reports. [5] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of investigations conducted by DCF pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) that included a home visit, including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of investigations conducted by DCF pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) that included a home visit broken down by the race or ethnicity of the family subject to the home visit. [6] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of home visits conducted by DCF in connection with investigations pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b), including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of home visits conducted by DCF in connection with investigations pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) broken down by the race or ethnicity of the family subject to each home visit. [7] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of investigations conducted by DCF pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) where searches of a child’s body were performed, including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office.

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 3 March 5, 2026 a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of investigations conducted by DCF pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) where searches of a child’s body were performed broken down by race or ethnicity, and/or age of the child subject to a search of their body. [8] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of searches of a child’s body performed during an investigation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b), including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of searches of child’s body performed during an investigation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) broken down by the race or ethnicity and/or age of the child subject to a search of their body. [9] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of judicial warrants obtained for home visits conducted by DCF in connection with investigations pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B, including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, whether the 51A Report was screened in as an emergency or non-emergency, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of judicial warrants obtained for home visits conducted by DCF in connection with investigations pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B broken down by race or ethnicity of the family subject to the warrant. [10] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of home visits conducted by DCF in connection with investigations pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B that were authorized by a judicial warrant, including all such documents reflecting a breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, whether the 51A Report was screened in as an emergency or non-emergency, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of home visits conducted by DCF in connection with investigations pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B that were authorized by a judicial warrant broken down by race or ethnicity of the family subject to the warrant. [11] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of investigations conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) that resulted in response decisions of: (i) supported, (ii) substantiated concern, or (iii) unsupported, including all such documents reflecting any breakdown of such

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 4 March 5, 2026 number by year, allegation type, whether the 51A Report was screened in as an emergency or non-emergency, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of investigations conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) that resulted in response decisions of: (i) supported, (ii) substantiated concern, or (iii) unsupported, broken down by race or ethnicity of the child subject to the response decision. [12] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of investigations conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(b) that resulted in a child being removed from their home pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B or M.G.L. c. 119 § 24. [13] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of removals DCF conducted on an emergency basis (i.e., “emergency removals”) pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(c) or (e), including all such documents reflecting any breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the total number of children removed on an emergency basis pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(c) or (e) broken down by race or ethnicity. b. All data, reports, memoranda or other documents reflecting the total number of children removed on an emergency basis pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(c) or (e) broken down by whether or not there were any allegations of domestic violence. [14] All data, reports, memoranda, and other documents reflecting the total number of emergency removals where a juvenile court judge issued a temporary order transferring custody to DCF pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 24 after the removal of the child, including all such documents reflecting any breakdown of such number by year, allegation type, and/or DCF Area Office. a. All data, reports, memoranda, and other documents reflecting the total number of children removed on an emergency basis where a juvenile court judge issue a temporary order transferring custody to DCF pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 24 after the removal of the child, broken down by race or ethnicity. [15] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the time it took for a custody hearing to be held subsequent to an emergency removal pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(c) or (e) (for illustration, whether such hearings were conducted within a week, two weeks, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, 120 days, 180 days, more than 180 days or otherwise as such data is maintained), including all

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 5 March 5, 2026 such documents reflecting any breakdown of such number by whether the 51A Report was investigated on an emergency or non-emergency basis. [16] All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the length of time children were remanded to DCF custody in conjunction with an investigation before they are returned to their families (for illustration, whether such length of time was up to 30 days, up to 60 days, up to 90 days, up to 180 days, up to 12 months, between 12 and 24 months, more than 24 months, or otherwise as such data are maintained), including all such documents reflecting any breakdown of such number by whether or not the child was removed on an emergency basis pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119 § 51B(c) or (e) and whether the 51A Report was investigated on an emergency or non-emergency basis. a. All data, reports, memoranda, or other documents reflecting the length of time children were remanded to DCF custody, broken down by race or ethnicity for each child that falls into the time periods outlined above, or as otherwise maintained by DCF. [17] All records, including but not limited to handbooks, policy manuals, written guidance, or training materials, reflecting DCF’s current policies and procedures on: a. Screening of reports of child abuse or neglect; b. Investigating reports of child abuse or neglect; c. The use of any AI tools, predictive technology, or other risk or safety assessment tools for screening 51A Reports or otherwise investigating child abuse or neglect; d. Determining whether a report of child abuse or neglect warrants an emergency response; e. Notifying parents or families of their legal rights in connection with investigations, including home visits; f. Conducting home visits, including when a DCF worker is refused entry into a child’s home; g. Conducting searches of a child’s body during a visit and interview with a reported child, including when a DCF worker is denied consent to search the child’s body by the child’s parent or guardian; h. Circumstances in which judicial warrants should be sought to enter a home or remove a child; i. Substantiating reports of child abuse or neglect; or j. Placing children in DCF custody, including on an emergency basis. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3406 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 1, 2025). In my December 1st determination, I closed the appeal in light of the Department providing a response on November 26, 2025. Following

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 6 March 5, 2026 correspondence between the parties, the Department provided a further on February 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Rodriguez petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0619, 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. 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 November 26th and February 20th Responses In its November 26, 2025 response, the Department stated: Regarding items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of your request, the information you seek is beyond that which is publicly available. These requests do not exist as a single record or segregable portion of a larger record within the custody and control of DCF… Regarding items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of your request, DCF maintains that it does not have a report that contains the information that you seek. An agency is not required to create a new record in order to respond to a public record request… Regarding item 9… DCF does not have a report that contains this information. An agency is not required to create a new record in order to respond to a public record request… Regarding your request for raw data in the alternative, any potentially raw data responsive to your requests would constitute individual case data from DCF’s central registry. Central Registry data is exempt from disclosure under the public records law as it is “specifically or by necessary implication

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 7 March 5, 2026 exempted from disclosure by statute.” G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(a)… [T]his data is also exempt from public disclosure under G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)… Regarding item 17… The scope of records is unreasonably broad and vague… On February 4, 2026, Ms. Rodriguez modified Item 17 of the request to “include only subsections (b), (e), (f), (g), and (h),” and sought clarification regarding the Department’s response to Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. In its February 20, 2026 response, the Department stated: DCF has begun searching and compiling records pertaining to your narrowed request as to item 17 of your original request. I anticipate providing a production of these records by mid-March as to this request. As to your request for clarifications: Regarding items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of your requests, DCF does not have any documents (or memos, records, etc.) that reflect the data you seek in these requests. I addressed the matter of raw data in detail in my supplemental response issued on November 26, 2025. Also, as to item 9, it was addressed separately because I mistakenly did not address this item in the initial response. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Rodriguez argued: [1] DCF’s argument that providing the requested data will create a “new record” is legally erroneous. [2] DCF’s refusal to produce raw data under Exemptions (a) and (c) is improper. In addition, Ms. Rodriguez notes that she “does not seek review of Request 17 in this appeal given that DCF has said it is compiling the records and plans to produce them.” Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be advised that 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). Additionally, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). However, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977).

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 8 March 5, 2026 Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 Regarding Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of the request, based on the Department’s responses and the information provided in the appeal petition, where the Department states “these requests do not exist as a single record,” it remains unclear whether the Department possesses any records responsive to these portions of Ms. Rodriguez’s request. The Department must clarify this matter. To the extent that the referenced records exist, I find the Department must provide them in a manner consistent with Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Regarding items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the request, where the Department has twice confirmed, “DCF does not have any documents (or memos, records, etc.) that reflect the data you seek in these requests,” and where this office has no authority to compel the Department to create records, I find that these portions of Ms. Rodriguez’s appeal are resolved. With regard to each of the first 16 items of the request, however, to the extent the Department references “Central Registry data,” regarding potentially responsive “raw data,” alternatively requested by Ms. Rodriguez, it is unclear whether any requested records can be extracted. The Department is advised that extracting records or information from records that are already in existence and in its possession, custody, or control, is not creation of a record. The Department is directed to a 2020 Supreme Judicial Court decision relative to creating a record versus extraction of information from databases in order to produce records or information in response to a public records request. In Att’y Gen. v. Dist. Attorney for the Plymouth Dist., et al. (Plymouth Dist.), the Court stated: …where public records are in electronic form, as they increasingly are and will be, a public records request that requires a government entity to search its electronic database to extract requested data does not mean that the extracted data constitute the creation of a new record under the public records law. This interpretation of the public records law is supported by the regulations promulgated by the supervisor, who is required to adopt regulations to implement the public records law. Plymouth Dist., 484 Mass. 260, 275 (2020). The Department is advised that, 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(f) also provides that “[f]urnishing a segregable portion of a public record shall not be deemed to be creation of a new record. This applies to a responsive record in the form of an extract of existing data, as such data exists at the time of the request and is segregable from nonresponsive and exempt data.” The Department must clarify this matter.

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 9 March 5, 2026 Item 9 Regarding Item 9 of the request, as well as all additional portions of the request in which Ms. Rodriguez alternatively seeks “data,” the Department relies on Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold any such information it describes as “raw data.” 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 November 26, 2025 response, under Exemption (a), the Department stated: Regarding your request for raw data in the alternative, any potentially raw data responsive to your requests would constitute individual case data from DCF’s central registry. Central Registry data is exempt from disclosure under the public records law as it is “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(a). Specifically, G.L. c. 119, § 51F expressly prohibits the disclosure of this data in relation to individual cases in the central registry, as such category of information, “shall be confidential.” In addition, as the raw data requested would be specifically associated with individuals and families involved with DCF, the following laws also prohibit the release of this data, including, but are not limited to: G.L. c. 119, § 51E

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 10 March 5, 2026 (constraining the release of files and reports pertaining to child abuse and neglect); G.L. c. 119, § 23C(b)(xvii) (limiting the release of 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); G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c) (prohibiting the disclosure of information regarding a personally named individual the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy); 110 CMR 12.00 (regulating the release of Department records); 801 CMR 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); 45 CFR § 205.50 (Federal regulation of Title IV-E). Accordingly, these laws exempt this data as “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(a). 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).

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 11 March 5, 2026 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 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 November 26, 2025 response, under Exemption (c), the Department stated: …DCF cannot provide case specific data as it would not be sufficiently de- identified for the person most familiar with the situation or case. DCF must de- identified data for the person most familiar with the situation, not necessarily the requester, to prevent reidentification of individuals… Here, case specific data including contact information, demographic data, case IDs pertaining to individuals involved, dates pertaining to the incident, would be known to individuals most familiar with the case; e.g., the family members, case workers, lawyers, etc. Therefore, this data is also exempt from public disclosure under G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c), the privacy exemption. Although portions of responsive data records may fall under Exemption (a) or within the privacy clause of Exemption (c), the Department has not identified the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the Department must explain with specificity how Exemptions (a) and (c) apply to any withheld data records. It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (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. Rodriguez 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. Rodriguez may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Steven S. Treat, Esq. SPR26/0619 Page 12 March 5, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tatiana A. Rodriguez