New York Assembly Bill A08689

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/29/25
• Refer: 5/29/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Relates to unsealing unfounded child abuse and maltreatment reports upon a court order finding that justice requires the information in such reports is necessary for the determination of charges being investigated by a grand jury or for the purposes of prosecuting a violation of the penal law or otherwise necessary for the furtherance of justice.

Summary

This bill amends section 422 of the Social Services Law to expand the circumstances under which an unfounded child abuse or maltreatment report may be unsealed and disclosed. Under current law, access to such reports is limited; this bill would allow disclosure not only to prosecutors and law enforcement when they affirm under oath that the report is needed for an active investigation or prosecution, but also upon a court order finding the information necessary to prosecute a Penal Law violation or otherwise necessary in the furtherance of justice. It also adds a new provision allowing disclosure to a grand jury upon court order when needed to determine charges under investigation or otherwise in the furtherance of justice. The bill also revises the rules governing use of unfounded reports in proceedings. It preserves the general rule that unfounded reports are not admissible in judicial or administrative proceedings, but adds an exception for grand jury proceedings and related criminal matters. It continues to allow a subject of the report to introduce the report in certain family court or civil false-reporting cases. The bill retains the existing requirement that legally sealed unfounded reports be expunged ten years after receipt. In practical terms, the bill would affect the confidentiality of child protective records in New York by making it easier for courts, prosecutors, and grand juries to access unfounded reports when those records are relevant to criminal justice purposes. It would not change the underlying standard for whether a report is founded or unfounded, but it would broaden the pathways for law enforcement and the judiciary to obtain sealed information and use it in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Child protective agencies would still be barred from treating a later report as indicated solely because of a prior unfounded report. The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and caption is that the measure is intended to improve access to potentially relevant information in serious criminal matters while still preserving confidentiality protections in most circumstances. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders. The structure of the bill suggests a balancing approach: expanding access for justice-related purposes while keeping redisclosure limits and redaction protections in place. The main point of contention is likely the tension between child-protection confidentiality and criminal justice access. Supporters would likely emphasize the need for grand jury and prosecutorial access when unfounded reports may contain information relevant to abuse-related crimes or false reporting cases. Opponents or privacy advocates may be concerned that unsealing unfounded reports could expose sensitive allegations, chill reporting, or increase the risk of misuse of records that were never substantiated.

Impact

The bill would amend Social Services Law section 422, which governs the Statewide Central Register and the confidentiality, disclosure, and admissibility of child abuse and maltreatment reports. It broadens the list of entities and circumstances under which unfounded reports may be unsealed, adding court-ordered disclosure for criminal prosecutions and grand jury matters, and it updates the evidentiary rules to permit use of such reports in grand jury proceedings and related criminal cases. The bill would therefore expand access to sealed child protective records for prosecutors, law enforcement, and grand juries while leaving the general confidentiality framework intact.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to measure directly. Based on the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted criminal-justice access bill rather than a broad rollback of confidentiality protections. The likely overall sentiment is cautious support for allowing access when a court finds it necessary for justice, paired with continued concern for privacy and the handling of sensitive child welfare records.

Contention

The central contention is between protecting the confidentiality of unfounded child abuse and maltreatment reports and allowing broader access when those records may be relevant to criminal investigations, prosecutions, or grand jury proceedings. Likely supporters include prosecutors, law enforcement, and advocates for criminal accountability, who may argue that court-supervised access is necessary to pursue justice. Likely critics include child welfare privacy advocates and civil liberties groups, who may worry that unsealing unfounded reports could expose families to stigma, increase redisclosure risks, and weaken the protections afforded to reports that were not substantiated.