By George M. Gilmer, Esq. | ACS and SCR Defense Attorney | Gilmer Law Firm PLLC | Brooklyn, NY | Call 718-864-2011
If you’ve been cleared by Family Court but still have an “indicated” report in the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR), you’re not alone—and you do have options.
At Gilmer Law Firm PLLC, based in Brooklyn, New York, we represent parents in Article 78 proceedings who are challenging administrative determinations by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS). We fight to reverse wrongful findings that continue to damage our clients’ reputations and employment opportunities—long after Family Court has dismissed all allegations.
One recent Court of Appeals case—Matter of Jeter v. Poole, 43 N.Y.3d 241 (2024)—exemplifies the very injustice our clients face. While the majority of the Court upheld OCFS’s decision to keep a mother listed on the SCR despite her Family Court case being dismissed, the dissent told a different story—one that reflects what we at Gilmer Law Firm see far too often.
This blog explores that case, the legal issues it raised, and how our firm uses Article 78 proceedings to help clients clear their names.
What Is an Article 78 Proceeding?
An Article 78 proceeding is a special type of lawsuit brought in New York Supreme Court to challenge actions taken by a state or city agency—such as the OCFS or ACS. These proceedings can be used to challenge:
- Indicated findings of maltreatment or abuse
- Decisions to keep a person on the State Central Register (SCR)
- Denials of administrative appeals
- Procedural errors during administrative hearings
At Gilmer Law Firm PLLC, we regularly represent parents, foster parents, and childcare workers in Article 78 challenges following unsuccessful fair hearings or internal reviews.
The Case:
Matter of Jeter v. Poole
In Jeter, a mother was accused by her teenage daughter of striking her with an extension cord. The Family Court allowed the case to resolve with an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD), and later dismissed the case entirely after the mother complied with all conditions. The child had recanted the allegations, and criminal charges were dropped.
But despite all of that, OCFS upheld an indicated report and concluded that the mother’s alleged conduct was “relevant and reasonably related” to her work in childcare. That decision meant her name would remain in the State Central Register, making it virtually impossible for her to return to work with children or the developmentally disabled.
She filed an Article 78 proceeding to challenge that determination—just like many of my clients do when administrative findings contradict Family Court dismissals.
The Appellate Division denied her petition. So she appealed to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Ruling—and Where It Went Wrong
The majority of the Court of Appeals ruled against the mother, finding:
- No constitutional right to assigned counsel during her OCFS hearing;
- The new law creating an irrebuttable presumption in favor of parents whose Article 10 cases were dismissed did not apply retroactively;
- And that the administrative decision to keep her on the SCR was supported by “substantial evidence.”
But here’s what’s troubling: at the time the mother’s Article 78 appeal was pending before the Appellate Division, the new law—designed to correct these exact injustices—had already gone into effect.
What the Dissent Got Right—and Why It Matters
Chief Judge Wilson’s dissent in Jeter laid out the real problem:
“This case has nothing to do with retroactivity. It rests on a long-settled doctrine that courts apply changes in law that take effect when a case is pending.”
That’s the same doctrine I rely on when representing clients in Article 78 proceedings. New York courts routinely apply the law as it exists at the time of appeal, not the time of the initial administrative determination. The law was changed to prevent OCFS from ignoring Family Court dismissals. Yet the majority refused to give that change effect—despite the case still being open.
The dissent also emphasized the real-life consequences of being on the SCR. Ms. Jeter was out of work. Her career in developmental care was shattered. She was punished for an accusation that Family Court never substantiated and that her daughter later admitted was false.
How We Fight SCR Injustice in Brooklyn and Beyond
At Gilmer Law Firm PLLC, I’ve helped many clients challenge indicated reports in OCFS administrative proceedings—and when necessary, through Article 78 petitions in Supreme Court.
Many of these clients:
- Have had their neglect or abuse petitions dismissed in Family Court.
- Completed services and complied with all court orders.
- Were never criminally convicted.
- Lost jobs or were barred from careers in teaching, healthcare, foster care, or child services.
- Faced racial or economic bias in the child protection system.
We don’t stop at the administrative level. When OCFS refuses to correct a wrong, we take the fight to Supreme Court and, if necessary, the Appellate Division. We raise constitutional arguments, due process violations, and changes in law—like the very reform that should have helped Ms. Jeter.
Why This Matters for Families in Brooklyn
Brooklyn parents and workers who deal with ACS or OCFS are often treated unfairly, especially in poor communities and communities of color. An indicated report can destroy your livelihood—even if the Family Court has dismissed the allegations.
That’s why legal representation matters. That’s why Article 78 proceedings are powerful. And that’s why the law needs to be applied consistently—and fairly.
If the dissent in Jeter v. Poole had been the majority, Ms. Jeter would’ve been cleared. She would’ve returned to work. Her dignity would’ve been restored. That’s the vision the legislature had when it passed SCR reform—and that’s the vision we fight for every day at Gilmer Law Firm PLLC.
Have an Indicated Report? Don’t Wait.
If you’ve been:
- Listed in the SCR
- Denied employment because of an OCFS finding
- Cleared in Family Court but still listed as a perpetrator
Call us.
Gilmer Law Firm PLLC represents clients across Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, and Staten Island. We file administrative appeals, demand fair hearings, and bring Article 78 proceedings to hold agencies accountable.
Call 718-864-2011 today to speak with an experienced ACS and SCR defense attorney.
Your name, your job, and your future matter. Let us help you fight back.
