Last week, Greg Geist drove from his home in Carroll to the State Capitol to attend a subcommittee hearing. Lawmakers were discussing an issue that has affected him and thousands of other Iowans: the rights of those on the state’s child abuse registry.
Legislation being considered would require the state to respond to appeals within a certain time. It’s a fine idea, but it doesn’t go far enough.
Geist’s story – which a Register editorial writer told on these pages in November 2009 – shows why.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) put Geist’s name on the registry after a teenage boy he had worked with accused him of sexual abuse. Geist lost his job in human services, which forced him to cash out his retirement savings and declare bankruptcy. He lost his license as a foster parent. And though he had been working with children his entire adult life – in shelters and residential treatment facilities and as a school liaison officer – being on the registry meant he could no longer do that.
More than a year later – after working relentlessly to clear his name – an administrative law judge reversed and “found to be incorrect” the DHS findings. Geist’s name was removed from the registry.
But the entire ordeal turned his life upside down.
After the Register wrote about Geist, we were contacted by many Iowans with similar stories. Some callers said they had never talked to a social worker before they were notified they were on the state’s list. Others had hired lawyers to try to get their names cleared. Some missed the deadline to file an appeal, and there was no action they could take, meaning they would remain on the registry for 10 years.
One teacher told us about getting into a physical struggle with her teenage daughter years before. She couldn’t believe she had been placed on a list identifying her as a “child abuser.” She was afraid to apply for a job at another school because someone would check the state-maintained database.
There are more than 60,000 names on Iowa’s registry and thousands more are added each year. Few of these people have been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. Most are parents who a DHS worker determined abused or neglected their own children. Being on the registry prevents people from working in certain jobs or getting custody of children in a divorce case. For teachers or social workers, or anyone who works with kids, being blacklisted by the state is professionally devastating.
So lawmakers are right to tackle this issue. House File 2223 would require that the state hold a hearing for people contesting being placed on the registry within 45 days – and issue a decision within 90 days. That’s a good step.
The more serious problem lawmakers need to address: Iowans aren’t given adequate due-process rights to defend themselves before the state labels them “abusers.” Lawmakers need to set a higher standard for placing people on the registry and ensure the state has resources to adequately investigate abuse allegations.
In this state, a child abuse investigator and his or her supervisor can place someone on the list if they determine it’s “more likely than not” the abuse allegation is true. Contrast that with the fact that to be convicted in court, a prosecutor has to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Granted, the goal of the registry is to protect children. But does a list of 60,000 names actually accomplish that? If a child’s safety or life is at risk, the state can remove that child from their home. And DHS keeps an internal database of people previously accused of abuse to check when a new report of abuse is made, so it can track patterns that raise concern.
Some states don’t maintain child abuse registries at all. In 1998, a Georgia court declared that state’s registry unconstitutional. West Virginia’s registry includes only names of people criminally convicted of abuse. In South Carolina and Missouri, unless an abuse finding has been confirmed in court, people aren’t placed on the registry. Iowa has much lower standards for blacklisting thousands of people.
So state lawmakers should do more than pass legislation to ensure a more timely appeal process for those on the registry. They also should work to ensure people are not wrongly put on the list in the first place.
Recent Comments