8.1.3- Circumstances requiring notification to alleged perpetrator when the disposition is needs protective services and accepts, needs protective services and refuses, or needs protective services no longer exists and the department notified a licensing, regulatory or legal authority of the disposition. 

• This policy requiring notification to the alleged perpetrator be notified (no matter what if the alleged perpetrator is identified and referral was sent to a legal authority or licensing or regulatory authority) potentially puts the adult victim at further risk of abuse or neglect. Simply put is is also unfair to the client.
• This policy takes away the adult's autonomy 
  • If the adult does not want APS involvement, but the APS worker has evidence that the adult was abused, neglected, and/or exploited and the matter was referred to a legal, licensing, or regulatory authority, then the alleged perpetrator has to be notified and given the opportunity for review.
  • Likewise, if the adult does not want the alleged perpetrator to know about APS involvement, however, a legal, licensing, or regulatory authority was notified per policy, and the alleged perpetrator is found to be the perpetrator, then the APS worker is required to notify the perpetrator of the findings and give them the opportunity for review. 
• This policy section is contradictory to policy 2.14.5- Notification to law enforcement and medical examiner "The APS worker is required to notify law enforcement immediately of the following circumstances: When the APS report indicates that sexual abuse, serious bodily injury that is a result of abuse, neglect, criminal activity involving abuse or neglect that places the adult in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, suspected financial exploitation has occurred or there is a suspicious death that may have been the result of abuse or neglect. AND
• Policy 8.1.7 Consultation with law enforcement prior to notification of alleged perpetrator (When the LDSS has referred information to law enforcement at any point during the investigation, the LDSS shall consult with law enforcement prior to providing the notification to the alleged perpetrator 
  • Basically a referral to law enforcement is required to be made in every financial exploitation case. Even if law enforcement don't investigate the matter, the notification was made and if it is determined that the need for protective services exists or did exist and the alleged perpetrator is identified as the perpetrator, then a right to review is required and so is consultation. This is contradictory and could cause harm/risk of harm to the adult victim.

8.1.6 Required contents in the right to review notification: A summary of the evidence and information used by the local department to support the findings for the investigation; inform the alleged perpetrator about his right to review; and if applicable, identify all licensing, regulatory, or legal authorities and the date the authorities were notified. 

• This contradicts the policy 2.36.1 regarding who has legitimate interest in the disposition of the report and 2.36.4  (Agencies or persons who receive confidential information pursuant to 2.36.1 and 2.36.2 shall provide the following assurances to the LDSS 1. The purpose for which information is requested is related to the adult protective services goal in the services plan for adult...) 
  • The alleged perpetrator is likely not using the information provided to him/her for service provision, however, are using it to defend themselves and likely discredit the adult victim. 

8.1.15 When information is requested by the alleged perpetrator:

Identifying information of adult: name, DOB, etc, is prohibited from being released

• How do you conduct a hearing when you can't release the name of the victim that the alleged perpetrator is being identified as having abused, neglected, or exploited? This is unfair to the alleged perpetrator which is contradictory to the whole purpose of the right to review policy for "due process"
• Police reports, medical records, etc are often used as evidence in the APS disposition, but this cannot be released and therefore, the alleged perpetrator and Director simply has to take the word of the APS worker that the evidence exists, which again goes against the purpose of this policy related to due process- fairness. 

In summary, it is my opinion that this policy has the potential to put the adult victim at further risk of abuse, neglect and/or exploitation. There should be a revision of this policy to include the option to not send a right to review to the perpetrator if the adult requests that the review is not be sent and/or that the APS worker/supervisor/director or designee finds that sending a review would put the adult at risk of abuse, neglect and/or exploitation.