In 2005, two (2) of the Appellants' children were committed
to the custody of DYRS. In 2007, the DYRS case for each child was closed,
apparently without any notice to the parents/Appellants. The Appellants sought
to obtain the complete DYRS files for themselves and each of their children.
The Freedom of Information Act gives any person the
right to inspect and copy any public records of a public body subject to
certain exemptions. D.C. Code § 2-532. In response to the FOIA request, DYRS
declined to provide the files, citing a statutory exemption to FOIA
regarding this type of personal record. Specifically, "DYRS records
pertaining to youth in the custody of the Department or contract providers
shall be privileged and confidential and shall only be release pursuant to
§16-2332." D.C. Code § 2-1515.06(a).
D.C. Code §16-2332 sets out that juvenile social
records will only be released to limited persons (or agencies), and only for
limited purposes. The Court of Appeals noted that parents are not included
in the selected list of limited persons to whom the records may be released.
On its face the Court's decision simply stands for the construct that these
confidential records fall within a specific statutory exemption to FOIA.
However, the Court noted that FOIA is designed to
promote the disclosure of information, not inhibit it.
Washington Post v. Minority Bus. Opportunity Comm'n,
560 A.2d 517, 521 (D.C.1989). Generally, exemptions to FOIA are to be
narrowly construed with ambiguities resolved in favor of disclosing the
information. Moreover, the statute places the burden of defending a decision
to withhold requested information on the agency. D.C. Code § 2-537 (b).
The Court indicated that typically an agency in the
District of Columbia is required to provide the reviewing Court affidavits
and Vaughn indexes, so that the Court might
be the final arbiter of the agency's decision to withhold information.
Vaughn indexes require a detailed index
itemizing each item that is being withheld, the exemption claimed for that
item, and the reason why the exemption applies to the particular item. In
Vaughn, the Court stated, "It is vital that
some process be formulated that will (1) assure a party's right to
information is not submerged beneath government obligation and
mischaracterization, and (2) permit the court system effectively and
efficiently to evaluate the factual nature of disputed information."
Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C. Cir.
1973).
The Court observed that DYRS did not provide the trial
court with affidavits, a Vaughn index,
testimony, or other verifiable support for its determination that these
records were protected "Juvenile Social Records." Under normal
circumstances, such a record would cause the Court likely to find that the
agency failed to meet its burden of defending its decision to withhold
production. The Court concluded, however, that this case is unique because
the parents sought to get all records pertaining to themselves and their
children. The very terms of their FOIA request fell squarely within the
class of youth records considered privileged and confidential and not
subject to disclosure.
The Court went on to hold that DYRS was not required to
provide redacted versions of the personal records on the basis that
redaction could not effectively conceal the identity of the individual
discussed in the records in this context.
Top
