Summary#
A-11698 would amend New York’s Social Services Law, which the bill identifies as the law setting child-abuse reporting duties. Its stated goal is to exclude certain social workers from the duty to report suspected child abuse or maltreatment when their belief arises solely through legal representation or a request for representation.
- A social worker employed or supervised by a lawyer providing representation in a criminal or civil matter would not have to report if the belief arose solely during that representation.
- The same exception would apply when a prospective client is seeking criminal or civil representation and the belief arose solely while seeking it. Family-law and delinquency matters are examples, not the only matters covered.
- The bill says these workers would not be required to report in those circumstances. It does not say they are prohibited from reporting.
- The bill is at the introduced stage, so it is not law. If enacted, it would take effect immediately.
What it means for you#
- Social workers employed or supervised by lawyers: The bill would create a limited exception to the reporting duty under Social Services Law §413. It applies only when the worker’s belief arises solely in the course of representation or seeking representation.
- Lawyers and people seeking legal representation: The bill could mean a social worker working for or supervised by the lawyer would not have to make a report based solely on information arising during the representation or the effort to obtain it. The bill does not create a new confidentiality privilege.
- Children, families and the public: The bill would change who is required to report in these limited circumstances. It does not set out a process for deciding whether the exception applies.
- Current law: The supplied materials do not include the full current version of Social Services Law §413, so I could not verify how the bill’s exception would interact with the existing reporting rules.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The supplied materials give no cost estimate, funding amount or staffing plan.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define “arises solely in the course” of representation or seeking representation.
- It does not say how a social worker or lawyer should handle a case where the belief also comes from information outside the representation.
- It does not explain how this exception would interact with other reporting duties or existing confidentiality rules.
- The supplied materials do not show whether the bill would affect any other parts of current law.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that people may be more willing to seek legal advice or share information during representation if the social worker working with the lawyer is not required to report information that comes solely from that legal work.
- The exception is limited to social workers employed or supervised by a lawyer, and to beliefs arising solely during representation or a request for it.
- The bill covers both criminal and civil matters, including family-law and delinquency matters, where information may arise in the course of legal representation.
Case against#
- One concern is that the exception could mean suspected abuse or maltreatment learned solely during legal representation is not reported by a social worker who would otherwise have a reporting duty.
- The bill does not explain how to determine whether the belief arose “solely” during representation, which could make the exception difficult to apply.
- It is unclear how the exception would work alongside other reporting duties and confidentiality rules.